(PC) Mario Amador Gonzalez v. Warden Soto et al, No. 1:2016cv01675 - Document 128 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 111 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 109 Motion for preliminary injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/18/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO AMADOR GONZALEZ, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. DR. SCHARFFENBERG, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 109, 111) 16 17 No. 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc No. 111.) 22 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations 23 within twenty-one days of service of the same. The deadline for filing objections has passed, and 24 plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 26 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 27 file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 28 and proper analysis. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Given the foregoing: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 111) are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 109) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 18, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2