Opinion
No. 1:15-cv-00924-DAD-SKO
03-19-2018
MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. A. PODSAKOFF, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. Nos. 46, 47, 65, 66, 74)
Plaintiff Michael Gonzales is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 25, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default. (Doc. No. 46.) On February 7, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's motion be denied. (Doc. No. 65.) The parties were provided twenty-one days in which to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id. at 2.) To date, neither party has done so, and the time for filing objections has now passed.
On August 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 47.) On February 14, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's motion be denied. (Doc. No. 66.) The parties were provided twenty-one days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id . at 3.) On March 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the February 14, 2018 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 74.)
The court construes this motion for reconsideration as an objection to those findings and recommendations. --------
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
In his motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff claims that he is at risk of imminent harm because defendants have begun involuntarily medicating him with antipsychotic drugs. (Doc. No. 47 at 1.) Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing them from doing so. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that these drugs have caused him pain, and have also damaged the lining of his esophagus. (Id.) In recommending denial of plaintiff's motion, the assigned magistrate judge noted that plaintiff had not provided the court with a declaration from a qualified medical professional explaining his medical condition, nor had plaintiff provided any basis upon which to conclude that plaintiff himself was qualified to render a medical opinion. (Doc. No. 66 at 2.) In seeking reconsideration of the findings and recommendations, plaintiff has provided the court with medical records from an examination of his esophagus. (Doc. No. 74 at 10-12.) However, those medical records provide no evidence that plaintiff is currently receiving antipsychotic medications, and provide no support for the conclusion that plaintiff is at risk of any imminent harm. Accordingly, the court finds no error with the conclusion reached by the magistrate judge that plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits of his claim.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons,
1. The findings and recommendations issued February 7, 2018 (Doc. No. 65) are adopted in full;/////
2. Plaintiff's motion for an entry of default (Doc. No. 46) is denied:
3. The findings and recommendations issued February 14, 2018 (Doc. No. 66) are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED.
4. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 47) is denied;
5. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 74) is denied; and
6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
Dated: March 19 , 2018
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE