(PC) Davis v. State of California et al, No. 1:2018cv00832 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/23/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 35, 37) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Jerome Markiel Davis is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action 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. 21 This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Roberts in her individual 22 capacity for deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth 23 Amendment. On October 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court order CDCR 24 to provide him with envelopes, stationary, and pens, on the basis that he is an indigent pro per 25 inmate. (Doc. No. 35.) 26 On November 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 27 recommendations, construing plaintiff’s motion as seeking preliminary injunctive relief and 28 recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied because the court lacks jurisdiction over 1 1 individuals who are not parties to this action. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days 2 in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff has not filed 3 any objections, and the time do so has now passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 5 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 6 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. 9 10 are adopted in full; and 2. 11 12 13 The findings and recommendations issued on November 19, 2019 (Doc. No. 37) Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed on October 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 35) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.