(PC) Matthew v. Lahey et al, No. 2:2009cv02415 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/22/09 ordering this court's order and findings and recommendations filed 11/17/09 17 recommended that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction be granted in part and denied in part, "pending further receipt" of the information described above. This information is consistent with the original recommendation of this court, which awaits adoption by the district judge. No further preliminary relief is warranted at this time. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Matthew v. Lahey et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH B. MATTHEWS 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-09-2415 GEB GGH P vs. LAHEY, et al., 14 ORDER Defendants. 15 / 16 Pursuant to this court’s Order and Findings and Recommendations filed 17 November 17, 2009, and this court’s Order filed December 3, 2009, defendants have filed a 18 response to this court’s inquiries concerning plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, 19 specifically, whether plaintiff has been provided an exercise resistance band, and whether a 20 clavicle brace would be beneficial to plaintiff at this stage of his recovery. 21 Chief Medical Officer of California State Prison – Solano, A. Traquina, M.D., has 22 filed a declaration, dated December 11, 2009, stating that plaintiff received the exercise 23 resistance band on November 6, 2009, but that use of a clavicle brace is contraindicated. Dr. 24 Traquina stated that he has reviewed plaintiff’s medical chart and recently spoken with plaintiff’s 25 physical therapist. Dr. Traquina concludes: 26 \\\\\ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 Mr. Matthews would not benefit from a clavicle brace at this point in his recovery and rehabilitation. Mr. Matthews has improved his strength and range of motion through the exercises provided by the physiotherapist, and a clavicle brace at this point in his recovery would be contraindicated as it would impede Mr. Matthews’ range of motion, and interfere with his physical therapy. Docket 23-2, ¶ 3. This court’s Order and Findings and Recommendations filed November 17, 2009, 6 recommended that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be granted in part and denied in 7 part, “pending further receipt” of the information described above. This information is consistent 8 with the original recommendation of this court, which awaits adoption by the district judge. No 9 further preliminary relief is warranted at this time. 10 11 12 DATED: December 22, 2009 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows _____________________________ GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
