(PC) Ellington v. Director of Corrections et al, No. 1:2009cv00054 - Document 65 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 61 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Denying 59 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/28/2010. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Ellington v. Director of Corrections et al Doc. 65 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARCUS R. ELLINGTON, 9 CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00054-OWW-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 10 v. 11 CLARK, et al., 12 (ECF NOS. 44, 59, 61) Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Marcus R. Ellington (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in 16 the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 17 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this The matter was On June 3, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 22 Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which 23 contained notice to the parties that any objection to the 24 Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty days. 25 Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations 26 on June 11, 2010. 27 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 1 Having Dockets.Justia.com 1 carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 2 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 3 analysis. 4 lacked jurisdiction in this action to impose preliminary 5 injunctive relief. 6 in this action; the Director was never named as a Defendant in 7 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which is the operative 8 pleading in this action. 9 Plaintiff cites to no legal authority to support his contention 10 The Magistrate Judge properly found that the Court The Director of the CDCR is not a Defendant (Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 23.) that the Director is a Defendant. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. 13 14 15 The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 3, 2010, is adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, filed December 24, 2009 and May 27, 2010, are DENIED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: June 28, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
