(PC) De-Luis-Conti et al v. Cates et al, No. 1:2010cv01852 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 36 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 35 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/15/2012. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) De-Luis-Conti et al v. Cates et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GRAHAM ROGER LEE DE LUIS CONTI, CASE No. 11 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v. 14 15 16 1:10-cv-01852-LJO-MJS (PC) (ECF Nos. 35, 36) M. CATES, et al., Defendants. / 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Graham Roger Lee De Luis Conti, a state prisoner incarcerated at the 21 California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility (“CSATF”), is proceeding pro se 22 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 23 (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court 25 26 for the Eastern District of California. 27 -1- Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 On July 19, 2012, findings and recommendations denying Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order without prejudice (Findings and Recommendations Denying Mot., ECF No. 36) were filed in which the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s 4 5 6 motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 35) be denied without prejudice as he failed to provide facts which would enable a finding that he is in need of and entitled to 7 injunctive relief. The parties were notified that objection, if any, was due within fourteen 8 days. The fourteen day deadline has passed without any party having filed objections or 9 seeking an extension of time to do so. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has 11 12 13 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by 14 proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. 17 The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed July 19, 2012, in full, and 18 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 35) is DENIED 19 20 without prejudice. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 25 66h44d August 15, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 -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.
