Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00068-16/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1: 11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PLU 

STATUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER, AND PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

(Docs. 70, 71, 85)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 1 & 12.) 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 September 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations (Doc. 85.) to deny Plaintiff’s motion for PLU status and motion for 

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed objections. (Doc. 97.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 

the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 

Case 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS Document 106 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 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 2

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the 

record and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff argues that his motion should have been construed as a motion for an 

extension of time to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. The Docket reflects that 

Plaintiff filed a separate motion for an extension of time, which the Magistrate Judge 

granted. (Docs. 98 & 99.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of law or 

fact under the Findings and Recommendations.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on September 

1, 2015 (Doc. 85.) in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for PLU status (Doc. 70.) is DENIED; and 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 

(Doc. 71.) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS Document 106 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2