Gradford v. Stanislaus Public Safety Center et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Plaintiff's 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/2/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM GRADFORD,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA

Plaintiff,
v.
STANISLAUS PUBLIC SAFETY
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. Nos. 6, 11)

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 October 16, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice with the court stating his concerns about

22

officers at Deuel Vocational Institution. (Doc. No. 6.) On March 30, 2018, the assigned

23

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

24

for preliminary injunctive relief and recommending that plaintiff’s motion for such preliminary

25

relief be denied. (Doc. No. 11.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties

26

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

27

service. (Id. at 2.) On April 13, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice to the court stating that he had no

28

objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.)
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

For these reasons,

5

1.

6
7

adopted in full;
2.

8
9

12

Plaintiff’s notice (Doc. No. 6), construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction,
is denied; and

3.

10
11

The findings and recommendations issued March 30, 2018 (Doc. No. 11) 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

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2