(PC-G) Singleton, Sr. v. Biter, et al., No. 1:2012cv00043 - Document 77 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS And Regarding Plaintiff's Motion For Injunctive Relief (Document Nos. 69 , 70 , 72 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/2/2014. (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 MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Document Nos. 69, 70, 72) 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. 20 21 22 On May 22 and 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed motions which the Court construed as motions for injunctive relief. The matters were referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On May 29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff’s motions be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has filed objections. 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 May 29, 2014, are ADOPTED in 6 full; and 7 8 9 2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Documents 69 and 70) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: July 2, 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.