(PC) Quiroga v. King et al, No. 1:2015cv01697 - Document 58 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Denial of Motion for Preliminary Injunction 56 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/2/2018: Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 54 , is denied; and The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MONICO J. QUIROGA III, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. Case No. 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-JDP ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TIMOTHY KING, et al., (ECF No. 56) 14 Defendants. 15 Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga III is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 16 17 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He brings a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process 18 claim against defendants O. Fuentos and Timothy King. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 26, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion requesting to “add jurisdiction [pursuant] to 28 20 21 U.S.C. § 2361” and a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 54.) On August 2, 2018, the assigned 22 Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending denial of the motion. 23 (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff untimely filed objections on August 23, 2018. (ECF No. 57.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 26 the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1 1 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 2, 2018, (ECF No. 56), are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, (ECF No. 54), is denied; and 4 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings 5 consistent with this order. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 2, 2018 SENIOR 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.