(PC) Carroll v. CDCR et al, No. 1:2022cv00363 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Permanent and Preliminary Injunction; ORDER DENYING 13 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/10/2022. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREMAYNE CARROLL, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PERMANENT AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 12) Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 13) v. CDCR, et al., 15 16 Case No. 1:22-cv-00363-AWI-BAM (PC) 17 18 Plaintiff Tremayne Carroll (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet 20 been screened. 21 On April 20, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion or permanent and preliminary injunction be denied. (ECF 23 No. 12.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 24 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff 25 has not filed objections, and the deadline to do so has expired. 26 On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF 27 No. 13.) As Plaintiff’s second motion largely reiterates the factual allegations and request for 28 relief set forth in her first motion, the undersigned considers the two motions together. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s second 3 motion for temporary restraining order, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings 4 and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 6 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 20, 2022, (ECF No. 12), are adopted in full; 8 2. Plaintiff’s motion for permanent and preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 10), is denied; 9 3. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, (ECF No. 13), is denied; and 10 11 4. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 10, 2022 SENIOR 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.