(PC) Mitchell v. Clark et al, No. 1:2008cv01544 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 07/06/2009. (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Mitchell v. Clark et al Doc. 21 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 DE WALTER MITCHELL, 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-001544 LJO DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. KEN CLARK, et al., 9 Defendants. (Doc. 17 ) 10 / 11 12 Plaintiff De Walter Mitchell (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 13 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 14 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 15 On May 8, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which 16 was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and 17 Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and 18 Recommendations on May 22, 2009. 19 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 20 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 21 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 8, 2009, is adopted in full; and 24 2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed November 3, 2008, April 1, 2009 and May 4, 2009 are denied without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: b9ed48 July 6, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
