(PC) Calloway v. Warden Corcoran State Prison et al, No. 1:2005cv01284 - Document 123 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motion For An Injunction To Be Transferred Out Of CSATF CSP #11 Davita Inc. Health Care And CSP #1 Custody (ECF Nos. 114 , 115 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/26/2013. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:05-cv-01284-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION TO BE TRANSFERRED OUT OF CSATF CSP #11 DAVITA INC. HEALTH CARE AND CSP #1 CUSTODY (ECF Nos. 114, 115) Plaintiff Jamisi Jermaine Calloway (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 20 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Sergeant Montgomery, 21 Officer Babb and Dr. Bhatt subjected Plaintiff to an unnecessary and painful enema procedure in 22 violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 23 On October 17, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 24 Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction to be transferred from the California Substance Abuse Treatment 25 Facility to a medical facility be denied. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties 26 and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty days after service. (ECF No. 115.) 27 On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 120.) 28 1 1 In his objections, Plaintiff attempts to reargue the merits of his request for injunctive relief. 2 Although Plaintiff’s allegations of alleged assault and retaliation following his filing of this action are 3 considered serious, the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case to order the California Department of 4 Corrections and Rehabilitation to transfer him to a medical facility. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 6 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 7 the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 8 analysis. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on October 17, 2013, are adopted in full; and 11 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunction to be transferred, filed on September 26, 2013, is DENIED. 12 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill November 26, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
