(PC) Gonzales v. Podsakoff, et al., No. 1:2015cv00924 - Document 110 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 99 Findings and Recommendations DENYING 90 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/17/19. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL GONZALES, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:15-cv-00924-DAD-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, v. A. PODSAKOFF, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. No. 90, 99) 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied because the court lacks 23 jurisdiction over individuals who are not parties to this action. (Doc. No. 99 at 2.) The findings 24 and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to 25 be filed within twenty-one days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the findings and 26 recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 27 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes 1 1 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, 3 1. 4 5 6 7 8 The findings and recommendations issued on January 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 99) are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 90) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 17, 2019 UNITED STATES 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.