(PC) Johnson v. Frauenheim et al, No. 1:2014cv01601 - Document 56 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/16/2016 adopting 47 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to deny 43 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. J. BEJINEZ, et al., CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-BMK ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF No. 47 & 43) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for 20 judicial intervention requesting, among other things, that an order issue directing 21 Defendants to cease and desist “unethical conduct” and admonishing prison officials to 22 “better regulate their legal mail.” (ECF NO. 43.) The matter was referred to a United 23 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 302 of the 24 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 25 On April 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 26 (F&Rs), construing Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 request as a motion for injunctive relief 27 28 1 and recommending that the motion be denied. (ECF No. 47.)1 Plaintiff was given thirty 2 (30) days to file objections to the F&Rs. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to file objections. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 4 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 Court finds the F&Rs to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Court adopts in full the F&Rs filed April 19, 2016 (ECF No. 47); 8 2. Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 request (ECF No. 43), construed as a motion 9 for preliminary injunction, is DENIED; and 10 3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 13 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 16, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Also included in Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 request was a request to late-file an opposition to Defendants motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge addressed the timeliness of Plaintiff’s opposition filing in the context of an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ motion to strike. (See ECF No. 46.) Defendants’ opposition was deemed timely filed, so his request to late file is moot. 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.
