(PC) Gradford v. Stanislaus Public Safety Center et al, No. 1:2017cv01248 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Plaintiff's 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/2/18. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM GRADFORD, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA Plaintiff, v. STANISLAUS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. Nos. 6, 11) 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 October 16, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice with the court stating his concerns about 22 officers at Deuel Vocational Institution. (Doc. No. 6.) On March 30, 2018, the assigned 23 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, construing plaintiff’s notice as a motion 24 for preliminary injunctive relief and recommending that plaintiff’s motion for such preliminary 25 relief be denied. (Doc. No. 11.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties 26 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after 27 service. (Id. at 2.) On April 13, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice to the court stating that he had no 28 objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 For these reasons, 5 1. 6 7 adopted in full; 2. 8 9 12 Plaintiff’s notice (Doc. No. 6), construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, is denied; and 3. 10 11 The findings and recommendations issued March 30, 2018 (Doc. No. 11) 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 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.