(PC) Hernandez v. Ballam, et al., No. 1:2017cv00468 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 44 Findings and Recommendations, and DENYING 39 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/12/18. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ANTHONY CEASAR HERNANDEZ, 10 11 12 13 Case No.: 1:17-cv-00468-LJO-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. BALLAM, et al., Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 39, 44] 14 15 16 Plaintiff Anthony Ceasar Hernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show cause for a preliminary 20 injunction. (Doc. No. 39.) On April 16, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that the motion be denied. (Doc. No. 44.) Those findings and 22 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 23 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 3.) 24 On May 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the 25 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 47). On May 8, 2018, that extension was granted. 26 (Doc. No. 48.) The extended deadline has passed, and no objections have been filed. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 28 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 1 1 file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 2 and proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 16, 2018 (Doc. 44) are 5 adopted in full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction, filed on 7 April 9, 2018, is denied; and 8 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 9 proceedings consistent with this order. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ June 12, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2