(PC) Singleton v. Fortune et al, No. 1:2017cv00124 - Document 50 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 46 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 38 Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/6/2017. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAMAR SINGLETON, SR., 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. DR. FORTUNE, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 38, 46) 16 17 No. 1:17-cv-00124-DAD-GSA Plaintiff Lamar Singleton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding on the first amended complaint in 19 which plaintiff alleges that defendant Fortune violated of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to 20 adequate medical treatment. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On June 20, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 (Doc. No. 46) recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. 24 The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations 25 within fourteen days. (Id.) To date, neither party has filed objections and the time for doing so 26 has passed. 27 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully considered the entire 1 1 file, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 2 record and proper analysis. 3 Given the foregoing: 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 20, 2017 (Doc. No. 46) are adopted 5 6 7 8 in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 38) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 6, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 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.