Corena v. Holland et al

Filing 78

ORDER ADOPTING 73 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 02/14/2019. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JORGE CORENA,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01025-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF. NOS. 70 & 73)
RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

Jorge Corena (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

15

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on his Second

16

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14), on his claims against defendants Rodriguez, Cerveza, and

17

Doe for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against the Doe defendant for

18

failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Rodriguez and

19

Doe for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 26). The matter was

20

referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

21

Rule 302.

22

On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 70).

23

On January 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and

24

recommendations, recommending “that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be

25

DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a separate action based on his allegations in the

26

Motion and seeking injunctive relief in that case.” (ECF No. 73, p. 3).

27

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and

28

recommendations. The deadline for filing objections has passed, and none of the parties have
1

1

objected or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations.

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

3

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

4

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

5

analysis.

6

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

7

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on January 9,

8

2019, are ADOPTED in full; and

9

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED, without prejudice to

10

Plaintiff filing a separate action based on his allegations in the motion and seeking

11

injunctive relief in that case.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

February 14, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2