-SMS (PC) Vasquez v. Yu, No. 1:2010cv02013 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 15 Findings and Recommendations Recommending Denying Plaintiff's Motions for a Preliminary Injunction 11 , 12 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/19/11. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
-SMS (PC) Vasquez v. Yu Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 VINCENT VASQUEZ, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02013-LJO-SMS PC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 9 v. 10 DR. J. YU, et al., 11 (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 15) Defendants. 12 / 13 Plaintiff Vincent Vasquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 14 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 15 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 16 Plaintiff filed motions seeking a preliminary injunction requiring him to be transferred from 17 Corcoran State Prison to a prison that could care for his medical needs and that officials at Corcoran 18 State Prison not be allowed to overrule the recommendation made by his kidney specialist on 19 January 20, 2011 and exhibits on February 22, 2011 . (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) On June 17, 2011, the 20 Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which was served on the parties and 21 which contained notice to the Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were 22 to be filed within twenty one days. (ECF No. 15.) More than twenty days have passed and no 23 objections have been filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 26 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. The findings and recommendations, filed June 17, 2011, is adopted in full; and 2 2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction, filed January 20, 2011, and February 3 22, 2011 are DENIED. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: b9ed48 July 19, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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.