(PC)Barboza v. Green, No. 1:2012cv01914 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS And Denying Motion (Doc. Nos. 3 , 10 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/19/2013. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
(PC)Barboza v. Green Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, DENNIS ) PARK, CHARLES WRIGHT, and ) DOES 3 to 100, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) RONALDO BARBOZA, 9 10 11 12 13 1:12-CV-1914 AWI JLT ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION (Doc. Nos. 3, 10) 14 15 16 Plaintiff Rumaldo Barboza (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 17 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 26, 2012, 19 Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The matter 20 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 21 Rule 302. 22 On December 7, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation 23 (“F&R”) that recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and 24 preliminary injunction. The F&R was served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objection 25 to the F&R was to be filed within fourteen days. To date, Plaintiff has filed no objections.. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has reviewed this 27 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the F&R to be supported by the 28 record and by proper analysis. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 4 ADOPTED in full; and 2. 5 6 The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 7, 2012 (Doc. No. 10), is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: 0m8i78 September 19, 2013 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 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.