(PC) Singleton v. Hedgepath et al, No. 1:2008cv00095 - Document 69 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 44 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 38 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/26/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Singleton v. Hedgepath et al Doc. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KELVIN X. SINGLETON, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, vs. A. HEDGEPATH, et al., Defendants. 1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 44.) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 38.) _____________________________/ Kelvin X. Singleton (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 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 72-302. 20 On March 26, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 21 plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on November 9, 2009, be denied. (Doc. 44.) 22 On April 22, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 57.) 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73- 24 305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 26 analysis. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, this action concerns events occurring between May 27 2, 2006 and January 18, 2008. The pending motion concerns Defendants’ current failure to provide 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff with eye glasses. A district court should not issue an injunction when the injunction deals 2 with matters outside the lawsuit’s issues. See Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th 3 Cir.1997); Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam). Further, a party 4 seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that the party is likely to succeed on the merits, 5 that the party is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance 6 of equities tips in the party’s favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural 7 Res. Def. Council, Inc., – U.S. – , 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008); National Meat Ass'n v. Brown, 599 8 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010). The court finds Plaintiff has not met this standard. 9 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 10 1. 11 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on March 26, 2010, are adopted in full; and 12 2. 13 Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on November 9, 2009, is DENIED. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: 0m8i78 May 26, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
