Johnson v. Bejinez

Full title: LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. J. BEJINEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 16, 2016

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-BMK (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2016)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-BMK

12-16-2016

LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. J. BEJINEZ, et al., Defendants.

Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF No. 47 & 43)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for judicial intervention requesting, among other things, that an order issue directing Defendants to cease and desist "unethical conduct" and admonishing prison officials to "better regulate their legal mail." (ECF NO. 43.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On April 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations (F&Rs), construing Plaintiff's February 26, 2016 request as a motion for injunctive relief and recommending that the motion be denied. (ECF No. 47.)¹ Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days to file objections to the F&Rs. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to file objections.

1 Also included in Plaintiff's February 26, 2016 request was a request to late-file an opposition to Defendants motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge addressed the timeliness of Plaintiff's opposition filing in the context of an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' motion to strike. (See ECF No. 46.) Defendants' opposition was deemed timely filed, so his request to late file is moot. --------

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the F&Rs to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts in full the F&Rs filed April 19, 2016 (ECF No. 47);

2. Plaintiff's February 26, 2016 request (ECF No. 43), construed as a motion for preliminary injunction, is DENIED; and

3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16 , 2016

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE