(PC) Moore v. Torres et al, No. 1:2018cv00601 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/29/2019. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 XZAVR MOORE, 12 Case No. 1:18-cv-00601-LJO-EPG Plaintiff, 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF Nos. 31, 32) 14 C. GRIECO 15 Defendants. 16 17 Xzavr Moore also known as Amber Moore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro 18 se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court 19 20 screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and found a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant C. Greico. (ECF No. 17) 21 On April 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request asking the Court to issue a “decree for CCWF 22 to stop opening and reading [her] legal mail.” (ECF No. 31) Plaintiff alleges that prison officials 23 opened her legal mail on both 4/16/19 and 4/26/19 without her permission. (Id.) 24 On May 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 25 recommendations construing Plaintiff’s request as a motion for an injunction to prohibit prison 26 staff from opening or reading Plaintiff’s legal mail in her absence, and recommending that 27 Plaintiff’s motion be denied without prejudice, as there is not a sufficient nexus between the 28 allegations in the First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s requested injunction. (ECF No. 32.) 1 1 2 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff did not do so. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 4 Court had conducted a de novo review of this matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 5 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 6 analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 16, 2019 are ADOPTED in full; and 9 10 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 31) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: 14 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ July 29, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
