Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-11/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 AND MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Documents 22 and 23)

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

pauperis in this this civil action. On September 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive 

Relief. On September 16, 2013, he filed a Motion for Protective Order. The matters were 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302.

On September 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Plaintiff’s motions 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 October 15, 2013.

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 11/05/13 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

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 

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

and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 20, 2013, are ADOPTED in 

full;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Document 22) is DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (Document 23) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 11/05/13 Page 2 of 2