Williams v. Amay, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER Adopting 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Plaintiff's 13 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/26/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC M. WILLIAMS,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

Case No. 1:17-cv-01332-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

T. AMAY, et al.,
15
16

(ECF Nos. 13, 27)
Defendants.

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

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment against Defendants, Dr. Teresita Amay, Dr. Navdeep Baath, and
Dr. Bunn. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Defendants denied him Wellbutrin even
though he has a medical need for the medication, and that they denied him Wellbutrin in retaliation
for his verbal conduct of asserting his need for Wellbutrin and asserting his rights under prison
regulations. (ECF No. 1.)
On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order.
(ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff contends in his motion that his prescription for Wellbutrin expired on
February 15, 2017, and requests the Court direct the California Department of Corrections and

1 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to immediately renew his prescription for Wellbutrin. (Id.) Defendants
2 oppose the motion. (ECF Nos. 19, 25, 26.)
3

On February 27, 2018, the Court directed Defendants to file their response to Plaintiff’s

4 motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 15.) On March 20, 2018, Defendants filed their
5 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 19.)
6

On August 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations

7 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. (ECF No. 27.)
8 The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections
9 were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 6-7.) More than fourteen days have passed, and no
10 objections were filed.
11

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

12 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings
13 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

ADOPTED in full; and

16
17
18

The Findings and Recommendations entered on August 29, 2018 (ECF No. 27) are

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, filed on February 1, 2018 (ECF
No. 13) is DENIED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: September 26, 2018

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2