(PC) Manago v. Williams, et al, No. 2:2007cv02290 - Document 75 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/3/10 ORDERING that the 57 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; plaintiff's 34 Motion for special hearing construed as a motion for injunctive relief is DENIED. (Owen, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Manago v. Williams, et al Doc. 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STEWART MANAGO, 11 Plaintiff, 12 No. CIV S-07-2290 LKK KJN P vs. 13 BRAD WILLIAMS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 19 On January 28, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 22 Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis, with one exception. As noted by this court’s order of February 24, 2010 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 (adopting the outcome, but not the analysis, recommended by the Magistrate Judge), the “sliding 2 scale” test for preliminary injunctive relief articulated by Coalition for Economic Equity v. 3 Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997) was rejected in part by Winter v. Natural 4 Res. Def. Council, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375-76 (2008). Although the court notes 5 this change for future reference, Winter has no effect on the resolution of the instant motion. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 28, 2010 (Docket No. 57), are 8 9 adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for special hearing (Docket No. 34), construed as a motion 10 for injunctive relief, is denied. 11 DATED: March 3, 2010. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
