Martinez v. Pfeiffer

Full title: RICARDO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. C. PFEIFFER, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 9, 2020

No. 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB (PC)

04-09-2020

RICARDO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. C. PFEIFFER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CASE AS DUPLICATIVE

(Doc. No. 13, 20)

Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 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 January 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the instant action be dismissed as duplicative of Martinez v. Standon, Case No. 1:19-cv-00845-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2019) and Martinez v. Lewis., No. 1:19-cv-00812-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019). (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were due within twenty-one (21) days of service of the order. (Id.) No objections were filed and the time to do so has now passed. /////

While the above findings and recommendations were pending, the magistrate judge issued another set of findings and recommendations on March 6, 2020, recommending that plaintiff's motion for an emergency preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were due within fourteen (14) days of service. (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff filed timely objections on March 16, 2020. (Doc. No. 21.)

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 concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 9, 2020 and March 6, 2020 (Doc. Nos. 13, 20) are adopted in full;

2. The instant action is dismissed as duplicative;

3. Plaintiff's motion for an emergency preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 19) is denied; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9 , 2020

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE