Hernandez v. Ballam, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING 28 Motion to Lodge Supplemental Documentation In Support of Preliminary Injunction Request; ORDER ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations recommending Denial of 24 Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/06/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ANTHONY CEASAR HERNANDEZ, 10 11 12 Case No.: 1:17-cv-00468-LJO-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO LODGE SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REQUEST [ECF No. 28] v. BALLAM, et al., 13 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [ECF Nos. 24, 25] 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff Anthony Ceasar Hernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show cause for a preliminary 22 injunction. (ECF No. 24.) On February 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings 23 and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied, without prejudice. (ECF 24 No. 25.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 25 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. More than 26 fourteen days have passed, and no objections have been filed. However, on February 20, 2018, 27 Plaintiff filed a motion requesting to lodge supplemental documents in support of his motion. 28 (ECF No. 28.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 2 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 3 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s additional documentation does not undermine 5 the findings or analysis by the magistrate judge, and the Court declines to allow Plaintiff to 6 deposit this evidence on the docket. The Court is not a repository for evidence. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s motion requesting to lodge supplemental documentation in support of 9 preliminary injunction request, filed on February 20, 2018 (ECF No. 28), is denied; 10 2. The findings and recommendations issued on February 9, 2017 (ECF No. 25), are 11 adopted in full; and 12 2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction (ECF 13 No. 24), is denied, without prejudice. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 6, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?