Baker v. Moreno, et al.

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/11/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

TOMMIE LEE BAKER, III,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

MORENO, et al.,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01758-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Docs. 23, 25)

Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff, Tommie Lee Baker III, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

15
16

pauperis in this in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred

17

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

18

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief for access to his legal and personal property on

19

October 5, 2017. (Doc. 23.) On October 20, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and

20

Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 25.) The Findings

21

and Recommendation was served that same date and allowed for filing of objections within

22

twenty-one days. (Id.) Despite lapse of more than double the time allowed, Plaintiff has not filed

23
24
25
26
27
28

any objections. However, though not required, defense counsel submitted a declaration
explaining the circumstances behind Plaintiff’s separation from his property and relaying
assurances received from the Litigation Coordinators at the RJ Donovan Correctional Facility and
California Health Care Facility to unite Plaintiff with his property as expeditiously as possible. 1
(Doc. 26.)
1

The Court appreciates defense counsel’s efforts to rectify this situation.

1

1

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

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the

3

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on October 20, 2017 (Doc. 25), is

6
7

adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed on October 5, 2017 (Doc. 23) is DENIED.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 11, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2