Tunstall v. Bick et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/26/18: 25 The findings and recommendations filed September 12, 2017, are adopted to the extent consistent with this order. 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2604-KJM-CMK-P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JOSEPH BICK, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by

19

Eastern District of California local rules.

20

On September 12, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

21

recommending denial of a motion for injunctive relief filed by plaintiff with his original

22

complaint on November 1, 2016. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties

23

and contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. No objections to

24

the findings and recommendations have been filed.

25

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

26

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

27

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

28

1983). Having reviewed the file, the court adopts the recommendation to deny plaintiff’s motion
1

1

for injunctive relief on the grounds that (1) plaintiff’s general request to “grant” his original

2

complaint “in its entirety”, ECF No. 3 at 13, does not meet the standards for issuance of an

3

injunction and (2) plaintiff’s original complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend, ECF No.

4

21. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, ECF No. 26, which was also dismissed with leave to

5

amend, ECF No. 29, and plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 29, 2018, ECF No.

6

31, is now pending screening before the magistrate judge.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 12, 2017, are adopted to

9
10
11

the extent consistent with this order; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied.
DATED: February 26, 2018

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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