Summary
denying a request for temporary restraining order because the case was closed
Summary of this case from Davis v. ThompsonOpinion
CASE NO. 16-CV-1211
03-13-2019
SANDY SMITH, JR. v. LA DEPT. OF SAFETY & CORRECTIONS, ET AL.
MAG. JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
JUDGMENT
Before the court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 20) in which the magistrate judge recommends Plaintiff's motions to amend, for writ of mandamus, and for temporary restraining order (Docs. 14, 15) be denied and dismissed. After issuance of the Report and Recommendation, noting that Plaintiff's proposed amendments would not cure the deficiencies that caused the court to close his case in January of 2017. (Docs. 11, 12, 13).
This court issued a judgment adopting the Report and Recommendation on August 3, 2018. (Doc. 21). On September 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Reopen Litigation Pursuant to Rule 60 Fed. R. Civ. P." (Doc. 22). By electronic order, dated September 19, 2019 (Doc. 23), the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff's motion and required him to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before October 19, 2018. While styled as a second "Motion to Reopen Litigation Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)" Plaintiff's next filing is actually his response to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 24).
After independent (de novo) review of the record in this case, including the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff's objections, we find that the Report and Recommendation is correct under applicable law and should be adopted in full. Specifically, we find that Plaintiff's responsive filings, while producing a volume of paperwork, did not address the various issues Plaintiff was required to address, per the court's November 7, 2016 order. (Doc. 11).
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's two pending motions (Docs. 14, 15) are DENIED in all respects.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 13th day of March, 2019.
/s/_________
DEE D. DRELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT