Opinion
No. 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM (PC)
01-23-2020
JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Doc. Nos. 35, 37)
Plaintiff Jerome Markiel Davis is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 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.
This case now proceeds on plaintiff's claim against defendant Roberts in her individual capacity for deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On October 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court order CDCR to provide him with envelopes, stationary, and pens, on the basis that he is an indigent pro per inmate. (Doc. No. 35.)
On November 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, construing plaintiff's motion as seeking preliminary injunctive relief and recommending that plaintiff's motion be denied because the court lacks jurisdiction over individuals who are not parties to this action. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time do so has now passed.
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 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 19, 2019 (Doc. No. 37) are adopted in full; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed on October 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 35) is denied.
Dated: January 23 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE