(PC) Valencia v. Kokor, No. 1:2013cv01391 - Document 60 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 58 Findings and Recommendations and denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/11/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL G. VALENCIA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WINFRED KOKOR, et al., 15 Case No. 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-DLB PC Defendants. (Document 58) 16 Plaintiff Daniel G. Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 17 18 this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 30, 2013. 19 On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court order Defendant 20 Sundaram to return his pain medication. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 21 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the 22 23 motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained 24 notice that any objections must be filed within thirty days. No objections have been filed. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 3 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. 6 7 The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 28, 2015, are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Document 56) is DENIED. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill December 11, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.