Mario Amador Gonzalez v. Warden Soto et al

Filing 128

ORDER adopting 111 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 109 Motion for preliminary injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/18/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO AMADOR GONZALEZ,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. SCHARFFENBERG, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 109, 111)

16
17

No. 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On April 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc No. 111.)

22

Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations

23

within twenty-one days of service of the same. The deadline for filing objections has passed, and

24

plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations.

25

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

26

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

27

file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record

28

and proper analysis.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6

Given the foregoing:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 111) are adopted in
full; and
2. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 109) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 18, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2