(PC) Youngblood v. Clark et al, No. 1:2015cv01746 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING 3 Motion signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/2/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:15-cv-01746-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION CLARK, et al., Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 3, 11) 16 17 Plaintiff Jesse L. Youngblood is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, and this 19 matter was therefore referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 7, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive and other relief, including seeking that a 23 judgment be entered in his favor in this action, be denied. (Doc. No. 3.) The findings and 24 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were to be 25 filed within fourteen days. 26 On October 21, 2016, plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and 27 recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff contends in his objections that he has suffered an 28 injury and has not received proper medical treatment. He also declares that this action is not 1 1 brought by him for any improper purposes. Plaintiff’s objections suggest that he has 2 misunderstood the scope of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations addressing his 3 request for preliminary injunctive relief. The court wishes to make clear to plaintiff, although his 4 motion for preliminary injunctive relief is being denied by this order, his case is not being 5 dismissed at this time. As the magistrate judge indicated in the findings and recommendations, 6 plaintiff’s most recently filed amended complaint has not yet been screened by the court. It will 7 be screened to determine whether it states any cognizable claim in due course. 8 9 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, including plaintiff’s 10 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by 11 proper analysis. 12 Given the foregoing: 13 1. The findings and recommendations filed on October 7, 2016 (Doc. No. 11) are 14 15 16 17 adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s application for injunctive and other relief (Doc. No. 3) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 2, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.