(PC) Verduzco v. Gipson et al, No. 1:2014cv01083 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 21 Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/2/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO VERDUZCO, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. C. GIPSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01083-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [ECF Nos. 21, 23] 17 Plaintiff Ricardo Verduzco is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 14, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be denied. (ECF No. 10.) Specifically, 22 Plaintiff requested an order directing CDCR to stop collecting restitution fine funds from his inmate 23 trust account until the filing fee for this action is paid in full. The Magistrate Judge found that the court 24 lacks jurisdiction to order CDCR to stop collecting state mandated restitution, as CDCR is not a party 25 to this action. 26 The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 27 objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Over thirty days have passed, and no objections 28 were filed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 3 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. adopted in full; and 6 7 The Findings and Recommendations issued October 14, 2016 (ECF No. 23), are 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed June 9, 2016 (ECF No. 21), is denied. 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2016 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.