(PC) Richard Villapando v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), No. 1:2014cv00823 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS And Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Temporary Restraining Order (Documents 17 , 20 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/28/2014. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 RICHARD VILLAPANDO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. CDCR, 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:14cv00823 LJO DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Document 20) 16 Plaintiff Richard Villapando (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prison inmate proceeding 17 18 pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 19 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 20 21 injunction. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 23 On September 18, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 24 25 26 contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff did not file objections.1 27 1 28 On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for a temporary restraining order. In his motion, he states that when he received the Court’s September 18, 2014, Findings and Recommendations, he realized that he had inadvertently filed a duplicate of his original motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court denied his original motion on July 25, 2014. 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 September 18, 2014, are ADOPTED in 6 full; and 7 8 9 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Document 17) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 28, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.