Cameron v. Rantz et al, No. 6:2008cv00042 - Document 112 (D. Mont. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 106 in full. Plaintiff's 93 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 1/5/2010. Copy mailed to Cameron. (TAG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cameron v. Rantz et al Doc. 112 FILED JAN 05 2010 PATRICK E. DUFFY, CLERK By ._. DEPUTY CLERK, MISSOULA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION WILLIAM W. CAMERON, Plaintiff, vs. DOCTOR ELIZABETH RANTZ, M.D., et aI., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 08-42-H-DWM-RKS ORDER ----------------------) Plaintiff Cameron, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations relating to the medical treatment he has received while incarcerated at the Montana State Prison. Cameron filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an order of this Court requiring prison officials to provide him with monthly doctor's appointments and access to a heart specialist. United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong has issued Findings and \Dockets.Justia.com Recommendations in which he concludes that the motion for injunctive relief should be denied. He explained that the motion does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) and that it fails to meet the criteria for a preliminary injunction. Judge Strong also noted that Plaintiff Cameron previously raised the same issues in an earlier motion for injunctive relief in this case, which was denied. Cameron did not timely object and so has waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). This Court will review the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Com. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). I can find no clear error with Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. No. 106) and therefore adopt them in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 93) i 'DENIED. DATED this of January, 2010.
]]>
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.
