Mixon, Jr. v. Tyson et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 34 , 35 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/17/2019. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LENDWARD ALTON MIXON, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

H. TYSON, et al.,

15

No. 1:16-cv-01868-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 34, 35)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Lendward Alton Mixon, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

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

20

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

21

proceeds on plaintiff’s first amended complaint against defendants Jimenez and Metts for

22

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

23

On January 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to make court aware of circumstances

24

regarding discovery, which the court construed as a motion seeking a preliminary injunction.

25

(Doc. No. 34.) In his filing, plaintiff seeks a court order directing correctional officers to return

26

his discovery paperwork. (Id.)

27
28

On January 18, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. No. 35.) The
1

1

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections

2

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

7

Accordingly,

8

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 18, 2019 (Doc. No. 35) are

9
10
11
12
13

adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 34) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 17, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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