-GBC (PC) Ahdom v. Enenmoh et al, No. 1:2010cv00816 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 16 ; ORDER Denying Supplemental Motion for Injunctive Releif 18 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/28/11. Motions 4 , 13 DENIED. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
-GBC (PC) Ahdom v. Enenmoh et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILAL AHDOM, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00816-OWW-GBC (PC) 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. ENENMOH, et al., 15 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 4, 13, 16) Defendants. ______________________________________/ ORDER DENYING SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 18) 17 Bilal Ahdom ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, Title II of the Americans with 19 Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA). On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff filed his 20 original complaint. (Doc. 1). On May 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief and on 21 October 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for injunctive relief. (Docs. 4, 13). The matter was 22 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On February 24, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which 24 was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and 25 Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an additional motion for injunctive 26 relief on March 2, 2011, and filed an objection to the Findings and Recommendations on March 21, 27 2011. In his objection, Plaintiff and argues, among other things, that his requests for injunctive relief 28 is not based on a disagreement between his medical opinion and that of prison medical authorities but 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 rather a disagreement between his neurologist and prison officials. (Doc. 19 at 4). However, as 2 discussed in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff has not submitted a 3 chrono stating that he must have a wheelchair accessible cell. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 5 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and Plaintiff’s objections, the Court 6 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion filed on March 2, 2011, does not meet the requirements for granting 8 injunctive relief and is duplicative of the motions for injunctive relief filed on May 13, 2010, and 9 October 6, 2010. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed on March 2, 2011, is DENIED. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 24, 2011, is adopted in full; 12 2. and Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, filed May 13, 2010; October 6, 2010; and March 2, 2011; is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: March 28, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 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.