(PC) Ransom v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitations, et al., No. 1:2011cv00068 - Document 106 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 85 Findings and Recommendations to Deny 70 Plaintiff's Motion for PLU Status, 71 Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/9/15. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN E. RANSOM, 12 13 14 15 CASE NO. 1: 11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PLU STATUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. 16 (Docs. 70, 71, 85) 17 18 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 20 rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 1 & 12.) The matter was 21 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 22 Local Rule 302. 23 On September 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 24 Recommendations (Doc. 85.) to deny Plaintiff’s motion for PLU status and motion for 25 temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff 26 filed objections. (Doc. 97.) 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 28 the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff argues that his motion should have been construed as a motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. The Docket reflects that Plaintiff filed a separate motion for an extension of time, which the Magistrate Judge granted. (Docs. 98 & 99.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of law or fact under the Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on September 1, 2015 (Doc. 85.) in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion for PLU status (Doc. 70.) is DENIED; and 3. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 71.) is DENIED. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 9, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.