Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TASSEY, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv00919 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Document 9)

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this this civil action. On June 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief. 

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 July 8, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Plaintiff’s motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections

on August 8, 2013. 

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, including Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 08/27/13 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record 

and by proper analysis.

In the Findings and Recommendations, the Court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to 

injunctive relief because there was no operative complaint, and because Plaintiff supported his 

request with only vague, unsubstantiated claims. Plaintiff’s objections fail to provide any 

specific factual information. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 8, 2013, are ADOPTED in full;

and

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Document 8) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 08/27/13 Page 2 of 2