(PC) Cortinas v. McCabe, et al., No. 1:2016cv00558 - Document 56 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 51 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/28/2017 denying 24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 32 Motion for a Court Order Emergency Circumstances Telephonic Conference; denying 35 Motion for TRO and denying 38 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for TRO. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, 1:16-cv-0558 LJO MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: v. (1) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR PROTECTIVE ORDER; CONALL MCCABE, et al., Defendants. (2) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE; 16 17 (3) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; AND 18 19 (4) DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND A TEMPORARAY RESTRAINING ORDER 20 21 22 (ECF NOS. 24, 32, 35, 38, 51.) 23 24 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 25 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 26 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 27 28 On November 7, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any 1 1 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. 2 (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 3 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS 5 HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 7, 2017 (ECF No. 51), are ADOPTED IN FULL; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and/or protective order (ECF No. 24) is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff’s motion for a “court order emergency circumstance[s] telephonic conference” (ECF No. 32) is DENIED; 4. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 35) is DENIED; and 5. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 38) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: 17 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 28, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF 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.