Davis v. State of California et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/23/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

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

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 35, 37)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Jerome Markiel Davis is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action 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.

21

This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Roberts in her individual

22

capacity for deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth

23

Amendment. On October 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court order CDCR

24

to provide him with envelopes, stationary, and pens, on the basis that he is an indigent pro per

25

inmate. (Doc. No. 35.)

26

On November 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

27

recommendations, construing plaintiff’s motion as seeking preliminary injunctive relief and

28

recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied because the court lacks jurisdiction over
1

1

individuals who are not parties to this action. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days

2

in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff has not filed

3

any objections, and the time do so has now passed.

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

5

court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

6

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

7

Accordingly,

8

1.

9
10

are adopted in full; and
2.

11
12
13

The findings and recommendations issued on November 19, 2019 (Doc. No. 37)

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed on October 23, 2019 (Doc.
No. 35) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 23, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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