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