Opinion
2:22-cv-01790-DAD-EFB (PC)
04-27-2023
BENJAMIN ROBERT GALLEGOS, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. Nos. 8, 11)
Plaintiff Benjamin Robert Gallegos is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 24, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief, in which plaintiff requests that the court order defendants to ensure that plaintiff “remain[s] in [his] current housing due to [his] medical conditions.” (Doc. No. 8 at 8.) On January 6, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief be denied because plaintiff's then-operative complaint was also being dismissed based on the magistrate's judge's screening order and therefore plaintiff had not demonstrated that he had “a fair chance of success on the merits.” (Doc. No. 11 at 5-6.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 6.) On January 19, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 13.)
In his objections, plaintiff purports to invoke his right “not to have a magistrate involved in these matters” and attaches a form titled “consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction” with the “decline” box checked by plaintiff. (Id. at 1-2.)) However, plaintiff's purported “declination” to magistrate judge jurisdiction has no impact on the assigned magistrate judge's authority to issue findings and recommendations with respect to dispositive matters. Indeed, this court's Local Rules provide that all actions initiated by prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., along with the motions filed in those actions, are referred to the magistrate judges of this court. See L.R. 101; 230(1), (k); 302(c)(17). In addition, and in any event, plaintiff's objections do not otherwise address plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for relief in the complaint that his motion for injunctive relief was predicated on. As a matter of fact, plaintiff appears to have accepted the magistrate judge's conclusion in that regard because he has since filed a first amended complaint and a now operative second amended complaint in this action. (Doc. Nos. 14, 17.) Thus, plaintiff's objections do not provide any basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations
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 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.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 6, 2023 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 8) is denied; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.