Tunstall v. Bick et al

Filing 34

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/19/2018 ORDERING that the Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations filed January 23, 2018,to the extent the denial of injunctive relief is based on the conclusion that the named defendants are not prison officials with power to carry out anyrequested action; the court DECLINES to adopt the findings and recommendations to the extent the denial of injunctive relief is based on any other conclusion; and the court DENIES plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 12, 14, 17, 20, 28). (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR.,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

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

v.

ORDER

JOSHEPH BICK et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

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

17

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

18

Eastern District of California local rules.
On January 23, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations,

19
20

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections

21

within a specified time. Objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

22
23

304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file,

24

the court finds the decision to deny plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief is supported by the

25

record, but limits its adoption of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis to the basis identified below.

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations filed January 23, 2018,

4

to the extent the denial of injunctive relief is based on the conclusion that the

5

named defendants are not prison officials with power to carry out any

6

requested action;

7
8
9

2. The court DECLINES to adopt the findings and recommendations to the extent
the denial of injunctive relief is based on any other conclusion; and
3. The court DENIES plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 12, 14, 17,

10

20, 28).

11

DATED: March 19, 2018.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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