Opinion
2:19-cv-01041 KJM CKD P
09-25-2023
OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. J.C. FRY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 17, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. See F&R ECF No. 89. Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. See Objs., ECF No. 93.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
The magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. See F&R at 3. In his motion, plaintiff asks the court to “order CDCR to institute the same policies for men and women with respect to their abilities to purchase, inside and outside prison, products containing high amounts of sugar including sugar itself, syrup, honey, jelly, and candy.” See F&R at 2; Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 63 at 2. However, the magistrate judge correctly points out “plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his equal protection claim for injunctive relief as he has not adequately established that he is similarly situated to female inmates who, under certain circumstances, are allowed to purchase products containing high amounts of sugar.” See F&R at 2. In his objections, plaintiff makes the same arguments he made in his motion and does not offer new information that is pertinent to the Findings and Recommendations. See Obj's. As a result, the plaintiff's objections are not persuasive.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 17, 2023, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 63) is denied; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings.