(PC) Gradford v. McDougall et al, No. 1:2017cv00201 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 27 & 31 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 26 & 28 Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/2/2018. (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 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA Plaintiff, v. MCDOUGALL, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 26, 27, 28, 31) 17 18 Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a request that the U.S. District Court monitor his 22 safety and wellbeing. (Doc. No. 26.) On February 22, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued 23 findings and recommendations, construing plaintiff’s request as a motion for a preliminary 24 injunction and recommending that plaintiff’s motion for the requested preliminary relief be 25 denied. (Doc. No. 27.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 26 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. 27 (Id. at 3.) On March 8, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice with the court stating that he had no 28 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 30.) 1 1 On March 1, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order “to stop the unlawful 2 conduct” of defendants towards plaintiff. (Doc. No. 28.) On March 19, 2018, the assigned 3 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, again construing plaintiff’s motion as a 4 motion for a preliminary injunction and recommending that the motion for preliminary relief be 5 denied. (Doc. No. 31.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 6 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. 7 (Id. at 3.) On March 27, 2018, plaintiff again filed a notice with the court stating that he had no 8 objections to the recommended denial of his motion. (Doc. No. 35.) 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 10 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 11 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 For these reasons, 13 1. 14 15 adopted in full; 2. 16 17 3. 4. 24 Plaintiff’s motion filed March 1, 2018 (Doc. No. 28), construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, is denied; and 5. 22 23 The findings and recommendations issued March 19, 2018 (Doc. No. 31) are adopted in full; 20 21 Plaintiff’s request filed February 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 26), construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, is denied; 18 19 The findings and recommendations issued February 22, 2018 (Doc. No. 27) are This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 2, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.