(PC) Quiroga v. Graves et al, No. 1:2016cv00234 - Document 46 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 42 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Plaintiff's 41 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/6/18. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICO J. QUIROGA III, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SERGEANT GRAVES, et al., 15 Defendants. No. 1: 16-cv-00234-DAD-GSA ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. Nos. 41, 42) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga III (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 31, 2018, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 22 plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied as moot. (Doc. No. 42.) The court 23 construes plaintiff’s motion as requesting preliminary injunctive relief against the Kern County 24 Sheriffs’ Department, but as discussed in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, 25 plaintiff is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 26 at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California. (Id. at 2.) As concluded in the findings and 27 recommendations, because plaintiff is no longer in the custody of the Kern County Sheriffs’ 28 Department, his motion for a preliminary injunction has been rendered moot. (Id.) 1 1 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 2 objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 3.) On August 9, 2018, plaintiff 3 filed objections. (Doc. No. 43.) 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 5 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 6 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 7 by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not respond to the findings and 8 recommendations, but instead merely assert that the court has jurisdiction over this action. (Doc. 9 No. 43.) 10 Accordingly, 11 1. 12 13 2018 (Doc. No. 42) are adopted; and 2. 14 15 18 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 41), filed on July 26, 2018, is denied; and 3. 16 17 The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on July 31, This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
