(PC) Campos-Rodriguez v. Dagostini et al, No. 2:2017cv01448 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/24/2018 ADOPTED 11 in Full Findings and Recommendations, to the extent they address plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction; Motion 10 for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; and this case is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Campos-Rodriguez v. Dagostini et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ARBOR CAMPOS-RODRIGUEZ, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-1448 KJM DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOHN DAGOSTINI, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff alleges defendants violated his right of access to the court by failing to provide him with 19 adequate law library facilities. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 2, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations addressing 22 plaintiff’s pending motion for a preliminary injunction. The findings and recommendations were 23 served on plaintiff and contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 24 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff has not filed 25 objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 27 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 28 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations as to the preliminary injunction request 2 to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 2, 2018 (ECF No. 11) are adopted in full 5 to the extent they address plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction; 6 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10) is denied; and 7 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 8 9 proceedings. DATED: September 24, 2018. 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.