Garraway v. Ciufo et al

Filing 89

ORDER ADOPTING 83 Findings and Recommendations DENYING 79 Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/30/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MITCHELL GARRAWAY,

12
13

No. 1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

14

JACQUELINE CIUFO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. Nos, 79, 83)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Mitchell Garraway is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

in this civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388

20

(1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint filed April 17, 2017, against

23

defendants Jacqueline Ciufo (Unit Manager), K. Miller (Corrections Officer), and Lieutenant J.

24

Zaragoza) for failure to protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 1.) On

25

July 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 79), which the

26

court construed as a request for preliminary injunctive relief. Therein, plaintiff seeks a court

27

order compelling officers at the United States Penitentiary (USP)-Coleman in Coleman, Florida to

28

refrain from tampering with his mail, remove his name from the “SIS/SIA” list, release his mail
1

1

to him, permit him to purchase stamps during lockdowns, designate mailroom staff to make daily

2

rounds to pick up his legal and special mail and enter it into a mail room log book in his presence,

3

ensure that he receives daily showers during all lockdowns, and transfer him to a different BOP

4

facility to prevent retaliation against him. (Doc. No. 79 at 4.) Defendants filed their opposition to

5

plaintiff’s motion on July 25, 2019. (Doc. No. 81.)

6

On July 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

7

recommending that plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief be denied because the

8

court lacks jurisdiction over individuals who are not parties to this action. (Doc. No. 83 at 2–3.)

9

The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

10

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. a 3.) To date, no

11

objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so

12

has now passed.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Accordingly,

17

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 29, 2019 (Doc. No. 83) are adopted

18
19

in full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed on July 23, 2019 (Doc. No.

20
21
22

79) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 30, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2