Millner v. Dileo et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 7 Motion for TRO, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/19/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES MILLNER,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
DR. DILEO, et al.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00507-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

15
16

Defendants.

[ECF Nos. 7, 15]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff James Millner is a state prisoner appearing pro se in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need based on a delay in wrist surgery against Defendants Dr.
Larry Dileo, Dr. Ulit, Chief Physician Spaeth, and the Chief Medical Examiner.
On May 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff asserted that he continues to be denied appropriate
medical care, and he seeks an order requiring that he immediately receive surgery.
On September 13, 2017, the Court directed the Attorney General to make a special
appearance on behalf of the unserved Defendants. (ECF No. 9.) On September 26, 2017, the
Attorney General filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on behalf of the unserved Defendants
on a special limited appearance. (ECF No. 10.)

1

On October 23, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations

2 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
3 injunction be denied. (ECF No. 15.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on
4 Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. (Id. at 5-6.)
5 More than thirty days have passed, and no objections were filed.
6

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

7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
8 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The Findings and Recommendations entered on October 23, 2017 (ECF No. 15)

11 are adopted in full; and
12

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction,

13 filed on May 8, 2017 (ECF No. 8), is denied.
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: December 19, 2017

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2