(PC) Steven Deon Turner, Jr. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabiliation et al, No. 1:2021cv00673 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/6/2021. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Steven Deon Turner, Jr. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabiliation et al Doc. 17 Case 1:21-cv-00673-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 08/06/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN DEON TURNER, JR., 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:21-cv-00673-DAD-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. Nos. 9, 11) Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Steven Deon Turner, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 20 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 29, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 9) be denied. 23 (Doc. No. 11.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 24 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of 25 service. (Id. at 5.) On July 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a difficult-to-decipher affidavit that the court 26 construes as objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.) Therein, 27 plaintiff appears to argue that he did not consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge and the 28 finding and recommendation should be voided on that basis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00673-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 08/06/21 Page 2 of 2 1 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, magistrate judges 2 are both authorized and required to issue findings and recommendations in cases brought by 3 prisoners seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(a), (b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 72; L.R. 302(c)(17), 303. Thus, it was not necessary for the parties to consent in order for the 5 assigned magistrate judge to issue findings and recommendations in this action. Accordingly, 6 plaintiff has failed to provide any basis to depart from the thoughtful analysis of the pending 7 findings and recommendations. 8 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 10 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 11 by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 29, 2021 (Doc. No. 11) are 14 adopted in full; 15 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 9) is denied; and 16 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 17 consistent with this order. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 6, 2021 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.