(PC) Womack v. Tate et al, No. 1:2019cv00614 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 9 is DENIED; ORDERED that this matter be referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with the order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/8/2020.(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, 12 No. 1:19-cv-00614-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 H. TATE, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. Nos. 9, 19) 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Rodney James Womack is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 18 pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 13, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 9.) On 20 21 June 12, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. No. 19.) The 23 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 24 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) On June 15, 2020, the 25 magistrate judge also issued a screening order, finding that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a 26 cognizable claim for relief and granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty 27 (30) days of the date of that order. (Doc. No. 21.) 28 ///// 1 1 On June 29, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from the magistrate 2 judge’s screening order. (Doc. No. 23.) On July 1, 2020, plaintiff amended his notice of 3 interlocutory appeal to include an appeal of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 4 recommending that his motion for preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. No. 25.) On July 23, 5 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of 6 jurisdiction because the orders challenged in the appeal are not final or appealable. (Doc. No. 7 28.) The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on August 14, 2020. (Doc. No. 30.) Since then 8 plaintiff has failed to file any objections to the pending June 12, 2020 findings and 9 recommendations. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 11 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 12 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 The findings and recommendations issued on June 12, 2020 (Doc. No. 19) are adopted in full; 16 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 9) is denied; and 17 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 18 19 20 proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 8, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.