Gradford v. McDougall et al

Filing 40

ORDER ADOPTING 27 & 31 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 26 & 28 Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/2/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA

Plaintiff,
v.
MCDOUGALL, et al.,

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

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 26, 27, 28, 31)

17
18

Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

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

20

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

21

On February 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a request that the U.S. District Court monitor his

22

safety and wellbeing. (Doc. No. 26.) On February 22, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued

23

findings and recommendations, construing plaintiff’s request as a motion for a preliminary

24

injunction and recommending that plaintiff’s motion for the requested preliminary relief be

25

denied. (Doc. No. 27.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and

26

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service.

27

(Id. at 3.) On March 8, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice with the court stating that he had no

28

objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 30.)
1

1

On March 1, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order “to stop the unlawful

2

conduct” of defendants towards plaintiff. (Doc. No. 28.) On March 19, 2018, the assigned

3

magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, again construing plaintiff’s motion as a

4

motion for a preliminary injunction and recommending that the motion for preliminary relief be

5

denied. (Doc. No. 31.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and

6

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service.

7

(Id. at 3.) On March 27, 2018, plaintiff again filed a notice with the court stating that he had no

8

objections to the recommended denial of his motion. (Doc. No. 35.)

9

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

10

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

11

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

12

For these reasons,

13

1.

14
15

adopted in full;
2.

16
17

3.

4.

24

Plaintiff’s motion filed March 1, 2018 (Doc. No. 28), construed as a motion for
preliminary injunctive relief, is denied; and

5.

22
23

The findings and recommendations issued March 19, 2018 (Doc. No. 31) are
adopted in full;

20
21

Plaintiff’s request filed February 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 26), construed as a motion for
preliminary injunctive relief, is denied;

18
19

The findings and recommendations issued February 22, 2018 (Doc. No. 27) are

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 2, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2