(PC) Williams v. Bell et al, No. 1:2016cv01584 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 10 , 16 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/25/17. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 C. BELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Case No.: 1:16-cv-01584-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF Nos. 10, 16] Plaintiff John Wesley Williams is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking a court order 20 directing Defendants to provide him proper treatment to treat his “cutting disorder” and to prevent 21 retaliatory denial of such treatment. Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s request on August 4, 22 2017. 23 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 11, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 25 Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. The 26 Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections 27 were to be filed within thirty days. On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants’ response 28 to his motion, and on August 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and 1 1 Recommendations. 2 In his objections, Plaintiff continues to argue that he is not being provided proper treatment for 3 his “cutting disorder.” While the Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s mental health condition, the record 4 demonstrates that he is being evaluated and treated by mental health staff at Corcoran State Prison. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 6 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 7 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 11, 2017, are adopted in full; and 10 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: October 25, 2017 14 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
