Opinion
1:21-cv-00704-NONE-SAB (PC)
08-30-2021
URIE NORRIS, Plaintiff, v. DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. Nos. 13, 15)
Plaintiff Urie Norris 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 August 3, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order directing that prison officials to stop interfering with the processing of his legal mail. (Doc. No. 13.) On August 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 15.) Those findings and recommendations were served on p laintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff filed objections August 19, 2021. (Doc. No. 16.)
In his objections, plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge's issuance of findings and recommendations is “illegal” and requests that this case be assigned to a district judge and that his consent” be withdrawn. (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) To clarify, the undersigned is presiding over this case and many others bearing the designation “NONE” or “Unassigned”) while this court awaits the Appointment of new judges to fill this court's long-standing vacancies. (See Doc. No. 14, filed August, 2021 (amended standing order re judicial emergency).) Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 36(b)(1)(C), the undersigned will be reviewing the assigned magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in this matter as the district judge presiding over this case.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de ovo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations entered on August 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 15) are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 13) is denied.
T IS SO ORDERED.