Asberry v. Biter

Filing 205

ORDER ADOPTING 198 Findings and Recommendations DENYING Plaintiff's 180 184 Motion's for Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/8/2021. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONY ASBERRY,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:16-cv-01741-NONE-HBK (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
C. RELEVANTE, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION’S FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 180, 184)

16
17

Plaintiff Mark Tony Asberry (“Asberry”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United

19

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

20

On January 7, 2020, plaintiff Asberry moved for “injunctive relief.” (Doc. No. 180).

21

However, in the body of that motion plaintiff merely requested “that the court take any action

22

other than to take notice of the seriousness of what plaintiff is alleging.” (Id. at 13). Plaintiff

23

later moved for a “preliminary injunction” and “temporary restraining order” seeking relocation

24

to administrative segregation in order to protect himself from his fellow inmates and his prison’s

25

guards. (Doc. No. 184).

26

On August 31, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

27

recommending Asberry’s motions be denied. (Doc. No. 198.) Those pending findings and

28

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were
1

1

to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the findings and

2

recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

3

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

4

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

5

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

6

Accordingly,

7

1.

8
9
10
11
12

The findings and recommendations issued on August 31, 2020 (Doc No. 198) are
adopted in full; and

2.

Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 180, 184) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 8, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2