(PC) Hernandez v. Thomas, No. 2:2017cv01803 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/28/2018 ADOPTING 31 Findings and Recommendations in full and DENYING 17 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
(PC) Hernandez v. Thomas Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, 12 13 14 No. 2:17-CV-1803-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER THOMAS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On August 31, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within the time specified therein (Doc. 31). No objections to these findings and recommendations 23 have been filed. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 27 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 The findings and recommendations filed August 31, 2018 (Doc. 31), are adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 17) is denied; and 5 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further 6 pretrial proceedings. 7 DATED: September 28, 2018. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 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.