Valadez v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF 3 MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/12/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL VALADEZ,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00551-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DENIAL OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
(ECF No. 12)

Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff Daniel Valadez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on April

20

19, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) That same day, Plaintiff also filed a motion for injunctive relief,

21

requesting that the court order the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to

22

immediately allow Plaintiff family visits overnight. (ECF No. 3.)

23

On May 15, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

24

recommending denial, without prejudice, of Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order

25

and a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 12.) Those findings and recommendations were served

26

on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14)

27

days after service. (Id.) Plaintiff filed no objections, and the deadline for any remaining

28

objections has now passed.
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 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

3

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly,

5

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 15, 2017 (ECF No. 12), are

6
7

adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (ECF

8
9

No. 3) is denied; and
3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate for proceedings consistent with

10

this order.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

June 12, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2