Richard S. Kindred v. Allenby et al

Filing 92

ORDER ADOPTING 85 Findings and Recommendations and Denying 81 Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/7/2021. (Jessen, A)

Case 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG Document 92 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON PRICE, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 81, 85)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Richard Scott Kindred is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

in this civil rights action pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

20

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On July 6, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an “order of protection of plaintiff’s

22

religious items during a search of plaintiff’s dorm room for contraband.” (Doc. No. 81.) On July

23

12, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge construed plaintiff’s request as a motion for injunctive

24

relief and issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for

25

injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 85.) Those findings and recommendations were served on

26

the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one

27

(21) days from the date of service. (Id. at 4.) To date, no objections have been filed and the time

28

in which to do so has passed.
1

Case 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG Document 92 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2
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 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

3

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6
7
8
9

The findings and recommendations issued on July 12, 2021 (Doc. No. 85) are
adopted in full; and

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 81) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 7, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2