Craver v. Hasty et al

Filing 119

ORDER adopting 114 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/21/14: Plaintiff's motion for federal protection 108 , construed as a motion for injunctive relief, is denied. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDRE CRAVER,

12

No. 2:11-cv-1344 TLN KJN P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. HASTY, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 10, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

20
21

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
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 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

26

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

27

analysis.

28

/////
1

1

The undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge that injunctive relief pursuant to the All

2

Writs Act is not warranted. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief concerns conditions at

3

California State Prison-Lancaster (“Lancaster”). Lancaster is located within the jurisdiction of

4

the United States District Court for the Central District of California. As Plaintiff has previously

5

been advised, his claims regarding conditions at Lancaster should be raised in a civil rights action

6

filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 10, 2014, are adopted in full; and

9

2. Plaintiff’s motion for federal protection (ECF No. 108), construed as a motion for

10

injunctive relief, is denied.

11
12

Dated: August 21, 2014

13
14
15
16
17

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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