(PC)Williams v. Cate, et al., No. 1:2009cv00468 - Document 70 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 64 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; and ORDER DENYING 32 and 52 Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/2/2011. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Williams v. Cate, et al. Doc. 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN B. WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 Case No. 1:09-cv-00468 OWW JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. (Doc. 64) 14 MATTHEW CATE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 9, 2011, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s two requests for preliminary injunctions be denied. (Doc. 64.) The 22 assigned magistrate judge explained that this action is proceeding only on Plaintiff’s claims against 23 Defendants Wegman, Gonzales, Howard, Ortiz, and Bradley regarding the alleged obstruction of 24 Plaintiff’s religious practices, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief regarding 25 matters outside this case. (Id. at 2.) To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief based on new claims, 26 the assigned magistrate judge advised Plaintiff to file a new civil rights action. (Id.) 27 The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any 28 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (Id.) On 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 February 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and 2 recommendations. (Doc. 69.) 3 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, the Court has conducted a 4 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file for this case, including the 5 objections filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 6 the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. 9 10 February 9, 2011 (Doc. 64) are adopted in full; 2. 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued by the assigned magistrate judge on Plaintiff’s April 2, 2010 request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 32) is DENIED; and 3. Plaintiff’s July 1, 2010 request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 52) is DENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Emm0d6Dated: 14 March 2, 2011 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
