(PC-G) Bertram v. Sizelove, et al, No. 1:2010cv00583 - Document 109 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 100 and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 97 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/4/13. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 TIMOTHY BERTRAM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. C. SIZELOVE, et al., 15 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10cv00583 AWI DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Document 100) 16 Plaintiff Timothy Bertram (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 18 pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 5, 2010. 19 20 21 On September 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for criminal prosecution, which the Court construed as a motion for preliminary injunction. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 23 On October 22, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties 24 25 26 and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The parties did not file objections.1 27 1 28 The parties filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations regarding Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. These Findings and Recommendations have since been vacated. 1 1 2 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 22, 2012, are ADOPTED in 6 7 full; and 2. 8 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Document 97) is DENIED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: April 4, 2013 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 13 14 0m8i788 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.