Lavery v. Dhillon

Filing 112

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/29/16 ordering in order to protect plaintiffs rights, secure independent review by the assigned district judge, and preserve issues for appeal, the court will construe plaintiffs recent submissio n 108 as an objection to the recommendation that plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order be denied, and to any and all findings and factand conclusions of law on which that recommendation is based. Plai ntiff need take no further action in order for his objections to be considered. The district court will consider the arguments that plaintiff has previously made regarding his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and will review the issue de novo. (Plummer, M) Modified on 9/29/2016 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH LAVERY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-2083 MCE AC P

v.

ORDER

B. DHILLON et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff has filed a statement with the court indicating that he received the Order and

17
18

Findings and Recommendations issued by the undersigned on August 29, 2016, ECF No. 108. In

19

his statement, plaintiff indicates that he requested assistance and additional time in the law library

20

due his writing disability, but did not receive it. See ECF No. 111 at 2-8. Plaintiff attaches,

21

presumably for reference, a copy of the requests he submitted to prison staff seeking additional

22

library time and other accommodations.1 See id. at 10-14. Although the instant filing might

23

reasonably be construed as a request for an extension of time to respond to the August 29, 2016

24

Order and Findings and Recommendations, the court is unable to determine from this filing how

25

much of an extension plaintiff may be seeking.

26

////

27
28

1

In the requests, plaintiff cited his limited time to respond to the court’s order and his need to
“research [his] response.” See ECF No. 111 at 12.
1

1

Plaintiff is advised that detailed legal arguments are not necessary in order for plaintiff to

2

object to Findings and Recommendations. Moreover, review of the August 29, 2016 Findings

3

and Recommendations in this case, ECF No. 108, demonstrates that the undersigned’s

4

recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief and a temporary

5

restraining order be denied is mandated by applicable legal principles based on the facts alleged

6

by plaintiff. There are no foreseeable grounds upon which plaintiff can reasonably dispute the

7

binding legal authority.

8
9

Nonetheless, in order to protect plaintiff’s rights, secure independent review by the
assigned district judge, and preserve issues for appeal, the court will construe plaintiff’s recent

10

submission as an objection to the recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

11

injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order be denied, and to any and all findings and fact

12

and conclusions of law on which that recommendation is based. Plaintiff need take no further

13

action in order for his objections to be considered. The district court will consider the arguments

14

that plaintiff has previously made regarding his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and will

15

review the issue de novo.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: September 29, 2016

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