Opinion
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01277-LJO-GBC (PC) ECF No. 40 ECF No. 47
08-31-2011
GERALD A. WEST, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, etal, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELI EF AN D ORDER DEN YI N G PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO DISMISS HIS REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
ORDER
Plaintiff Gerald A. West ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed August 27, 2010, against Defendants Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3 for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 25 & 27.)
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief on March 24, 2011. (ECF No. 32.) In it, Plaintiff appears to describe the facts of this action, subsequent altercations, retaliation, and due process violations, among other things.
The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 24, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for injunctive relief be denied. (ECF No. 40.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to meet the legal prerequisites for injunctive relief and described different causes of actions in different institutions not being dealt with here. Plaintiff failed to file an objection even after receiving an extension of time to do so. (ECF No. 46.) Instead, Plaintiff filed a Motion asking that the Court dismiss his request for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff states that he intends to file an amended complaint and will include a request for injunctive relief with it.
The Court notes that Plaintiff is free to file another request for injunctive relief or include a such a request in an amended complaint regardless of this Order.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed June 24, 2011, is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED; and
3. Plaintiff's Request to withdraw the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE