Ahdom v. Lopez

Full title: BILAL AHDOM, Plaintiff, v. S. LOPEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 29, 2016

1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2016)

Opinion

1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC)

09-29-2016

BILAL AHDOM, Plaintiff, v. S. LOPEZ, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, MOTIONS TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND MOTION FOR TRO/SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Docs. 165, 169, 174, 180, 182, 183)

Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Schaefer, Araich, Chen, Shittu, and Ashby for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's (1) motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendant Ashby, (Doc. 165); (2) motion to take judicial notice of documents in support of his motion, (Doc. 169); (3) second request to take judicial notice of documents in support of his motion, (Doc. 174); (4) request for a temporary restraining order and supplement to his pending request for a preliminary injunction, (Doc. 180); and (5) third request to take judicial notice of documents in support of his motion, (Doc. 182). On September 14, 2016, following careful consideration of these filings and Defendant Ashby's response, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that all of the aforementioned motions and requests be denied. (Doc. 183.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 8.) On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 185.) This Court finds no merit to Plaintiff's objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 14, 2016 (Doc. 183), are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff's motions and requests to take judicial notice of documents (Docs. 169, 174, 182), are DENIED;

3. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 165), is DENIED; and

4. Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and/or supplement to the pending motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 180), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 29, 2016

/s/_________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE