(PC) Arzaga v. Reed, No. 1:2010cv00369 - Document 56 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 51 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER Denying 49 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/16/2012. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Arzaga v. Reed Doc. 56 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 DANIEL ARZAGA, Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 7 SERGEANT REED, Defendants. 8 9 12 15 16 17 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 3, 2012, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, requesting a court order compelling prison officials to forward his legal materials to him, be denied. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court 18 19 20 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 21 1. 22 2. 24 26 27 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 3, 2012, are ADOPTED in full; and 23 25 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 49.) Daniel Arzaga (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant 13 14 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 51.) _____________________________/ 10 11 1:10-cv-00369-AWI-GSA-PC Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on August 30, 2012, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 16, 2012 0m8i78 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.
