From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ward v. Raygoza

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 12, 2021
1:21-cv-00903-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00903-DAD-SAB (PC)

11-12-2021

RONALD WILLIAM WARD, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINE RAYGOZA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DISMISSING CASE (DOC. NOS. 8, 10, 14)

Plaintiff Ronald William Ward is a state prisoner proceeding pre 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 July 15, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice with the court in which he requested that the Coalinga State Hospital be ordered to provide him with legal postage and supplies. (Doc. No. 8.) On September 27, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge construed plaintiff's request as a motion for injunctive relief and issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 10.) On October 7, 2021, plaintiff timely filed objections to those pending findings and recommendations, in which he argued that he was not seeking an injunction but only wanted the court to issue a “letter of reprimand” explaining his legal rights to Coalinga State Hospital. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff then filed his first amended 1 complaint on October 14, 2021. (Doc. No. 13.) On October 27, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued additional findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiffs first amended complaint be dismissed based on plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 14.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 6.) To date, no objections to the October 27, 2021 findings and recommendations have been filed with the court, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

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 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds both the September 27, 2021 findings and recommendations and the October 27, 2021 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 27, 2021 (Doc. No. 10) and October 27, 2021 (Doc. No. 14) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff s motion for an injunction (Doc. No. 8) is denied;

3. Plaintiffs first amended complaint (Doc. No. 13) is dismissed without leave to amend; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 2


Summaries of

Ward v. Raygoza

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 12, 2021
1:21-cv-00903-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021)
Case details for

Ward v. Raygoza

Case Details

Full title:RONALD WILLIAM WARD, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINE RAYGOZA, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 12, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-00903-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021)