(PC) Henderson v. Castillo et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations and Denying 4 Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/5/2021. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR.,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
S. CASTILLO, JR., et al.,

15

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01199-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
(Doc. No. 16)

16
17

Plaintiff Curtis Lee Henderson, Sr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302.

20

On November 24, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and

21

recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc.

22

No. 4) be denied. Doc. No. 16. The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s request for single-cell

23

status is now moot, and that his request for Defendants to “refrain from . . . retaliation or activities

24

that violate the constitution” is not narrowly tailored. Id. at 2–3. The findings and

25

recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him fourteen days to file objections

26

thereto. Id. at 3.

27
28

Plaintiff filed objections on December 29, 2020. Doc. No. 18. The objections are dated
December 3, 2020, but do not include a proof of service and were not received by the Court until

1

nearly four weeks later. Thus, it is unclear whether the objections were timely submitted to

2

prison officials for mailing to the Court. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court

3

considers the objections. Therein, Plaintiff requests that the Court take “judicial notice” of the

4

supplemental information he filed in support of his motion. The supplemental information,

5

however, is not related to the claims in the motion. Doc. Nos. 4 & 14.

6

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

7

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

8

objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

9

proper analysis.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12
13

The findings and recommendations issued on November 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 16), are
ADOPTED in full; and

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2021
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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