(PC) Martinez v. Pfeiffer et al, No. 1:2019cv01768 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 20 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Case as Duplicative signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/09/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO MARTINEZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB (PC) v. C. PFEIFFER, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CASE AS DUPLICATIVE (Doc. No. 13, 20) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 On January 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that the instant action be dismissed as duplicative of Martinez v. Standon, Case 23 No. 1:19-cv-00845-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2019) and Martinez v. Lewis., No. 1:19- 24 cv-00812-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019). (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and 25 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were due 26 within twenty-one (21) days of service of the order. (Id.) No objections were filed and the time 27 to do so has now passed. 28 ///// 1 1 While the above findings and recommendations were pending, the magistrate judge issued 2 another set of findings and recommendations on March 6, 2020, recommending that plaintiff’s 3 motion for an emergency preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20.) Those findings 4 and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were 5 due within fourteen (14) days of service. (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff filed timely objections on 6 March 16, 2020. (Doc. No. 21.) 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 8 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 9 including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 10 supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 9, 2020 and March 6, 2020 (Doc. Nos. 13, 20) are adopted in full; 13 14 2. The instant action is dismissed as duplicative; 15 3. Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 19) is denied; and 16 17 18 19 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 9, 2020 20 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.