(PC) Walker v. Mohadjer et al, No. 2:2013cv01193 - Document 50 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/6/14 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 10/3/13 39 are ADOPTED in full; and Plaintiff's MOTION for a TRO or Preliminary Injunction 38 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY E. WALKER, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-1193 WBS AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MOHADJER, Clinical Psychologist, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 3, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court observes that the instant motion is largely duplicative of previously denied 25 requests for immediate injunctive relief by plaintiff. ECF No. 32. The order denying these 26 motions is currently on appeal. See ECF Nos. 41, 42. In the Ninth Circuit appeal, the briefing 27 has been stayed until January 17, 2014 pending the adjudication of the current motion in this 28 court. See Order filed on December 17, 2013 (entry no. 10) in Docket No. 13-17041. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 3, 2013, are adopted in full; and 7 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction (ECF No. 38) is DENIED. 8 Dated: January 6, 2014 9 10 11 12 walk1193.804 13 14 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.