(PC-G) Singleton, Sr. v. Biter, et al., No. 1:2012cv00043 - Document 56 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motion For Injunctive Relief (Doc.Nos. 49 , 53 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/4/2014. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 LAMAR SINGLETON, SR., 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. M.D. BITER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:12cv00043 AWI DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. Nos. 49, 53) 16 17 Plaintiff Lamar Singleton, Sr., (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This action is proceeding against Defendants Biter and 19 Lopez for violation of the Eighth Amendment. On February 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion 20 21 22 23 which the Court construed as a motion for injunctive relief. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 14, 2014, 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 were to be filed within thirty days. Neither party has filed objections. 27 28 1 1 2 3 4 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 14, 2014, are ADOPTED in 6 full; and 7 8 9 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Document 49) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: April 4, 2014 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 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.