(PC) Tunstall v. Bick et al, No. 2:2016cv02604 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/19/2018 ORDERING that the Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations filed January 23, 2018,to the extent the denial of injunctive relief is based on the conclusion that the named defendants are not prison officials with power to carry out anyrequested action; the court DECLINES to adopt the findings and recommendations to the extent the denial of injunctive relief is based on any other conclusion; and the court DENIES plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 12, 14, 17, 20, 28). (Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Tunstall v. Bick et al Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR., 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:16-cv-2604-KJM-CMK-P v. ORDER JOSHEPH BICK et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 18 Eastern District of California local rules. On January 23, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 19 20 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 21 within a specified time. Objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 22 23 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, 24 the court finds the decision to deny plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief is supported by the 25 record, but limits its adoption of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis to the basis identified below. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations filed January 23, 2018, 4 to the extent the denial of injunctive relief is based on the conclusion that the 5 named defendants are not prison officials with power to carry out any 6 requested action; 7 8 9 2. The court DECLINES to adopt the findings and recommendations to the extent the denial of injunctive relief is based on any other conclusion; and 3. The court DENIES plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 12, 14, 17, 10 20, 28). 11 DATED: March 19, 2018. 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
