(PC) McDonald v. Yates et al, No. 1:2009cv00730 - Document 92 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 81 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's 62 66 67 Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, with Prejudice signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/11/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
(PC) McDonald v. Yates et al Doc. 92 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 JIMMY MCDONALD, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00730-LJO-SKO PC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, WITH PREJUDICE 6 v. 7 J. A. YATES, et al., 8 (Docs. 62, 66, 67, and 81) Defendants. 9 / 10 Plaintiff Jimmy McDonald is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 11 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 12 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 13 On July 11, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations 14 recommending denial of Plaintiff’s motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief. The thirty-day 15 deadline to file an objection has expired, and neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed an objection or 16 otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations. 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 18 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 19 supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on July 11, 2012, in full; 21 and 22 2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on May 23, 2012, June 18, 23 2012, and June 19, 2012, are DENIED, with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: b9ed48 September 11, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com

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.