Palacios vs. Smith, et al.

Filing 53

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/4/2019 ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations in full and DENYING 15 , 16 , 17 , and 18 Requests for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JORGE PALACIOS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-02500-TLN-CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KEVIN SMITH, et al.,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Jorge Palacios, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

18

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

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On November 30, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

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

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 20.) On

23

December 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed an untitled document that the Court construes as objections to

24

the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 23.)

25

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

26

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

27

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

28

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court
1

1

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United

2

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

3

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

4

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

5

be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 30, 2018 (ECF No. 20), are

8
9
10
11
12

adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s requests for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (ECF
Nos. 15–18) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 4, 2019

13
14
15
16

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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