(PC) Pope v. McDonald et al, No. 2:2013cv01896 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/7/15. Plaintiff's request for an order requiring CDCR to allow plaintiff to place non-collect phone calls, construed by the court as a motion for preliminary injunction, is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Pope v. McDonald et al Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH POPE, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-1896 KJM DAD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER BLOUSER, Defendant. 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 as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 4, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations and defendant has filed a response to plaintiff’s objections. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court 26 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 The court writes separately to note that both parties also address the magistrate judge’s 28 order granting plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cut-off and extending the deadlines for 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 completion of discovery and filing dispositive motions. This court will not address the issues 2 related to that order, which lie in the sound discretion of the magistrate judge. This order is 3 without prejudice to the right of any party to seek reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order 4 in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 4, 2015, are adopted in full. 7 2. Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring CDCR to allow plaintiff to place non-collect 8 phone calls, construed by the court as a motion for preliminary injunction, is denied. 9 DATED: October 7, 2015. 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 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.