(PC) Bowell v. Diaz et al, No. 1:2011cv01350 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief 28 , 32 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/20/13. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES EDWARD BOWELL, Case No. 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 15 A. DIAZ, et al., 16 (ECF Nos. 28, 32) Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff James Edward Bowell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action filed August 15, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 21 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 23 of California. 24 On October 31, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 25 (ECF No. 32) that Plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive relief (ECF No. 28) be denied 26 without prejudice. On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and 27 recommendations. (ECF No. 33.) 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 1 1 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 2 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 3 analysis. 4 The objections re-hash arguments previously considered and rejected by the 5 Magistrate in the findings and recommendations, that High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) 6 staff conspired and retaliated against Plaintiff, mishandled his legal mail and grievances 7 and denied access to the law library and courts. This, according to Plaintiff, prevented 8 authoritative response to the findings and recommendations. It remains that these re- 9 arguments, which relate to allegations and individuals not before the Court in this action, 10 are not a basis for objection for the reasons noted by the Magistrate. Plaintiff does not 11 identify any portion of the findings and recommendations with which he disagrees or any 12 factual or legal error or any issues requiring legal research. 13 14 Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of law or fact under the findings and recommendations and lack merit on that basis. 15 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. 2013 (ECF No. 32) in full, and 17 18 19 The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on October 31, 2. Plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive relief (ECF No. 28) is DENIED without prejudice. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: November 20, 2013 23 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
