(PC) Calderon v. Covello et al

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge William B. Shubb on 8/29/024 ADOPTING 53 The Findings and Recommendations in full; and Plaintiff's motion for reasonable judgment and reasonable consideration of equitable relief 45 and motion to reconsider equitable relief, etc. 50 , construed as motions for injunctive relief, are DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN CARLOS CALDERON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:23-cv-2049 WBS CSK P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

P. COVELLO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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.

20

On July 1, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending

21

that plaintiff’s motion for reasonable judgment and reasonable consideration of equitable relief

22

and motion to reconsider equitable relief, etc., construed as motions for injunctive relief, be

23

denied. (ECF No. 53.) On July 12, 2024, plaintiff filed a pleading this Court construes as

24

objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 54.)

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

27

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

28
1

1

analysis.1

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 53) are adopted in full; and

4

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reasonable judgment and reasonable consideration of equitable

5

relief (ECF No. 45) and motion to reconsider equitable relief, etc. (ECF No. 50), construed as

6

motions for injunctive relief, are denied.

7

Dated: August 29, 2024

8
9
10
11
12

cald2049.805

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

In his objections, plaintiff appears to raise claims not raised in the pending motions for
injunctive relief against individuals who are not parties to this action. A district court “has
discretion, but is not required,” to consider evidence and claims raised for the first time in
objections to a magistrate judge’s report. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th
Cir. 2000). This Court declines to consider the new claims raised in plaintiff’s objections. In
addition, the Court cannot issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).
2