(PC) Bradford v. Marchak, No. 1:2014cv01689 - Document 294 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and DENYING Plaintiff's Requests for a Preliminary Injunction 39 , 51 , 54 , 70 , 71 , 268 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/17/2018. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. M. MARCHAK, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01689-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Doc No. 39, 51, 54, 70, 71, 268] Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s second 18 amended complaint against Defendants Marchak, Grewal, Depovic, and Clausell for the unnecessary 19 and wanton infliction of pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 21.) 20 On April 2, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending the denial of Plaintiff’s several motions for preliminary injunction seeking to stay his 22 court-ordered involuntary medication. (Doc. No. 268.) The Findings and Recommendations were 23 served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) On 24 April 16, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 290.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 27 the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 analysis. Plaintiff’s objections raise no new issues not properly addressed by the Magistrate Judge. 1 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The April 2, 2018 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 268) are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction (Doc. Nos. 39, 51, 54, 70, 71), are 3 and 4 5 denied. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ April 17, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2