(PC) Palacios vs. Smith, et al., No. 2:2017cv02500 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/4/2019 ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations in full and DENYING 15 , 16 , 17 , and 18 Requests for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. (Huang, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Palacios vs. Smith, et al. Doc. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE PALACIOS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-02500-TLN-CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER KEVIN SMITH, et al., Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Jorge Palacios, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 30, 2018, 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. (ECF No. 20.) On 23 December 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed an untitled document that the Court construes as objections to 24 the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 23.) 25 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 26 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 27 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 28 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 2 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to 5 be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 30, 2018 (ECF No. 20), are 8 9 10 11 12 adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s requests for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 15–18) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 4, 2019 13 14 15 16 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.