(PC) Bullock v. Wasco State Prison Medical, No. 1:2014cv00092 - Document 94 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying MOTION and referring matter to Magistrate Judge 80 , 85 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/3/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GORDON BULLOCK, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:14-cv-00092-DAD-EPG v. BROCK SHEELA, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION, AND REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 80, 85) 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 18 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s fourth 19 amended complaint against Brock Sheela and C. Rios. (Doc. No. 26.) The matter was referred to 20 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 1, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motion, which was styled as a motion for sanctions but sought an 23 order compelling his transfer to a new facility and directing that a criminal investigation be 24 conducted into what he alleged was his attempted murder, be denied. (Doc. Nos. 80, 85.) The 25 parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations 26 within twenty-one days. To date, neither party has filed objections and the time for doing so has 27 now passed. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 2 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 3 file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 4 and proper analysis. 5 6 Given the foregoing: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 1, 2018 (Doc. No. 85) are adopted in 7 full; 8 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 80) is denied; and 9 3. 10 11 This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 3, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2