Wilson v. California State Prison Corcoran et al
Filing
20
ORDER adopting 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion for injunctive relief signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/27/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAVID W. WILSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 1:18-cv-00424-DAD-JDP
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON
CORCORAN, et al.,
Defendants.
16
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
(Doc. No. 12)
17
Plaintiff David W. Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
18
19
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
20
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 26, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
21
22
recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 12.) On August
23
9, 2018, plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 14.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
24
25
court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
26
including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported
27
by the record and proper analysis.
28
/////
1
1
Plaintiff’s objections, like his complaint, are difficult to decipher. However, it appears
2
that plaintiff’s main objection to the pending findings and recommendations is based upon his
3
contention that the facilities and accommodations at his institution of confinement are deficient.
4
(See Doc. No. 14 at 1–8.). However, this objection does not address the substance of the
5
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, which found that: (1) plaintiff’s motion for
6
permanent injunctive relief is premature given that a final hearing on the merits of plaintiff’s
7
claims has not taken place; (2) plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunctive relief should be
8
denied because plaintiff has not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims;
9
and (3), most importantly, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, which alleges various
10
deficiencies with the prison’s facilities and procedures, is unrelated to the allegations in his
11
complaint in which he alleges that he was retaliated against and deprived of medical treatment.
12
(Doc. No. 12 at 2–3.) None of plaintiff’s objections even attempt to respond to these findings.
13
Accordingly,
14
1.
15
The findings and recommendations issued on July 26, 2018 (Doc. No. 12) are
adopted in full;
16
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 11) is denied; and
17
3.
The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
18
19
20
21
proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 27, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?