VALADEZ v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Case No. 1:17-cv-00551-LJO-BAM (PC).

DANIEL VALADEZ, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Daniel Valadez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF No. 12)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff Daniel Valadez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on April 19, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) That same day, Plaintiff also filed a motion for injunctive relief, requesting that the court order the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to immediately allow Plaintiff family visits overnight. (ECF No. 3.)

On May 15, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending denial, without prejudice, of Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 12.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) Plaintiff filed no objections, and the deadline for any remaining objections has now passed.

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 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 15, 2017 (ECF No. 12), are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) is denied; and 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate for proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases