-BAM (PC) Ervin v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2010cv01859 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING in FULL the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 16 , 23 , 25 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/23/11. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
-BAM (PC) Ervin v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 NOKKUWA K. ERVIN, 10 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01859-AWI-BAM PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., (ECF Nos. 16, 23, 25 ) Defendants. / 15 16 Plaintiff Nokkuwa K. Ervin (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action on September 14, 18 2010. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff seeks temporary restraining orders and injunctions directing that his disabled 21 permanent disability status be restored; he be issued orthopedic shoes, a cane, and an egg crate 22 mattress; arrangements be immediately made for him to be examined by a qualified neurologist and 23 he be provided with a prescription for pain management therapy and physical therapy. (First 24 Amended Compl. 29-30, ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff also seeks a temporary restraining order and 25 injunction prohibiting any further harassment of Plaintiff and directing that he be immediately 26 released from administrative segregation. (Id. at 41-42.) On August 10, 2011, the Magistrate Judge 27 filed findings and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief be 28 denied. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed objections to findings and recommendations on September 21, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2011. (ECF No. 23.) The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s objections. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 3 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 4 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In the objections, 5 Plaintiff admits that the “eggcrate mattress”, the only issue remaining in the pending motion has 6 been denied based on medical positions taken after 2002, when it was first issued, and 2006, when 7 it was taken away. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations, filed August 10, 2011, is adopted in full; and 10 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed December 7, 2010 is DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: 0m8i78 December 23, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2