Quiroga v. Cooper et al

Filing 68

ORDER ADOPTING 55 62 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing Defendant Moreno and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunctionsigned by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/19/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICO J. QUIROGA, III,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:17-cv-00004-DAD-JDP

Plaintiff,
v.
C. COOPER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
DEFENDANT MORENO AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Doc. Nos. 55, 62)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga, III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

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

21

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

22

On July 23, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

23

recommending that defendant J. Moreno be dismissed from this case without prejudice based on

24

plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service of process. (Doc. No. 55.) On August 3, 2018, the

25

assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s

26

motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 57) be denied. (Doc. No. 62.) The findings and

27

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to

28

be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections. (Doc. Nos. 61, 66.)
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 the matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the

3

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

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6

Both the July 23, 2018 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 55) and the
August 3, 2018 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 62) are adopted in full;

7

2.

Defendant “J. Moreno” is dismissed from this action without prejudice;

8

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 57) is denied; and

9

4.

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

10
11
12

proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 19, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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