Gary v. Kincaid et al

Filing 17

ORDER Adopting 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding DENIAL of 14 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/28/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REGINALD A. GARY,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Case No. 1:18-cv-00612-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

KINCAID, et al.,
(ECF No. 15)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Reginald A. Gary (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a

19

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

20

On August 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking a

21

restraining order against Coalinga State Hospital staff to prevent them from reading, searching, or

22

otherwise taking or copying Plaintiff’s legal documents, without his presence and awareness.

23

Plaintiff argued that the injunction is necessary because he is in active litigation against Coalinga.

24

(ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint counsel on the same date. (ECF No. 13.)
On August 14, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order denying Plaintiff’s

25
26

motion to appoint counsel, without prejudice, as well as findings and recommendations

27

recommending denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 15.)

28

///
1

1

On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Objection Denying the

2

Recommendation for Preliminary Injunction Against Defendants at Coalinga State Hospital for an

3

Restraining Order.” (ECF No. 16.) In his objections, Plaintiff merely states that he objects to the

4

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny the motion for preliminary injunction, as well as the

5

denial of his motion for counsel.

6

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

7

de novo review of the case. Plaintiff’s objections fail to provide a legal basis on which to

8

question the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the

9

entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are

10
11
12
13

supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 14, 2018, (ECF No. 15), are adopted
in full;

14

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, (ECF No. 14), is denied; and

15

3. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

16

consistent with this order.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

August 28, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2