Toscano v. Davey et al

Filing 19

ORDER Adopting 14 Findings and Recommendations, and Denying 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/12/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BENJAMIN K. TOSCANO,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:16-cv-01369-DAD-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
DAVE DAVEY, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Defendants.
(Doc. No. 11, 14)

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff, Benjamin Toscano, is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 20, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21

recommending that plaintiff’s motion regarding transfer, construed by the court as a motion for a

22

preliminary injunction, be denied. (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and recommendations were

23

served upon plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within

24

thirty days from the date of service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.)

25

On April 6, 2017, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc.

26

No. 16.) Plaintiff objects to the referral of this matter to the assigned magistrate judge, and

27

contends that the magistrate judge is acting in violation of the State Bar Act, Rules of

28

Professional Conduct, and is committing a fraud upon the court. Plaintiff’s objections are
1

1

meritless. Plaintiff apparently fails to understand that this matter was referred to the assigned

2

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. In his objections

3

plaintiff also discusses the merits of his case and of a related case, but does not provide any

4

grounds upon which the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations should be rejected.

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

6

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

7

objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are

8

supported by the record and proper analysis.

9
10

Accordingly,
1. The March 20, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 14) are adopted in full;

11
12

and
2. Plaintiff’s motion regarding transfer, construed as a motion for a preliminary

13
14
15

injunction (Doc. No. 11), is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 12, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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