(PC) Baker v. Moreno, et al., No. 1:2016cv01758 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/11/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TOMMIE LEE BAKER, III, Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 MORENO, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01758-AWI-SKO (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Docs. 23, 25) Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff, Tommie Lee Baker III, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 15 16 pauperis in this in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 17 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief for access to his legal and personal property on 19 October 5, 2017. (Doc. 23.) On October 20, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and 20 Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 25.) The Findings 21 and Recommendation was served that same date and allowed for filing of objections within 22 twenty-one days. (Id.) Despite lapse of more than double the time allowed, Plaintiff has not filed 23 24 25 26 27 28 any objections. However, though not required, defense counsel submitted a declaration explaining the circumstances behind Plaintiff’s separation from his property and relaying assurances received from the Litigation Coordinators at the RJ Donovan Correctional Facility and California Health Care Facility to unite Plaintiff with his property as expeditiously as possible. 1 (Doc. 26.) 1 The Court appreciates defense counsel’s efforts to rectify this situation. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 3 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on October 20, 2017 (Doc. 25), is 6 7 adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed on October 5, 2017 (Doc. 23) is DENIED. 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 11, 2017 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 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.