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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?