(PC) Wilson v. California State Prison Corcoran et al, No. 1:2018cv00424 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion for injunctive relief signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/27/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID W. WILSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 1:18-cv-00424-DAD-JDP v. CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON CORCORAN, et al., Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. No. 12) 17 Plaintiff David W. Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 19 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 26, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 12.) On August 23 9, 2018, plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 14.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 26 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 27 by the record and proper analysis. 28 ///// 1 1 Plaintiff’s objections, like his complaint, are difficult to decipher. However, it appears 2 that plaintiff’s main objection to the pending findings and recommendations is based upon his 3 contention that the facilities and accommodations at his institution of confinement are deficient. 4 (See Doc. No. 14 at 1–8.). However, this objection does not address the substance of the 5 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, which found that: (1) plaintiff’s motion for 6 permanent injunctive relief is premature given that a final hearing on the merits of plaintiff’s 7 claims has not taken place; (2) plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunctive relief should be 8 denied because plaintiff has not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims; 9 and (3), most importantly, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, which alleges various 10 deficiencies with the prison’s facilities and procedures, is unrelated to the allegations in his 11 complaint in which he alleges that he was retaliated against and deprived of medical treatment. 12 (Doc. No. 12 at 2–3.) None of plaintiff’s objections even attempt to respond to these findings. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 The findings and recommendations issued on July 26, 2018 (Doc. No. 12) are adopted in full; 16 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 11) is denied; and 17 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 18 19 20 21 proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 27, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2