Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01746-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01746-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION

(Doc. Nos. 3, 11)

Plaintiff Jesse L. Youngblood is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, and this 

matter was therefore referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 7, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive and other relief, including seeking that a 

judgment be entered in his favor in this action, be denied. (Doc. No. 3.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were to be 

filed within fourteen days. 

On October 21, 2016, plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff contends in his objections that he has suffered an 

injury and has not received proper medical treatment. He also declares that this action is not 

Case 1:15-cv-01746-DAD-BAM Document 13 Filed 11/03/16 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

brought by him for any improper purposes. Plaintiff’s objections suggest that he has 

misunderstood the scope of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations addressing his 

request for preliminary injunctive relief. The court wishes to make clear to plaintiff, although his 

motion for preliminary injunctive relief is being denied by this order, his case is not being 

dismissed at this time. As the magistrate judge indicated in the findings and recommendations, 

plaintiff’s most recently filed amended complaint has not yet been screened by the court. It will 

be screened to determine whether it states any cognizable claim in due course. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by 

proper analysis.

Given the foregoing:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on October 7, 2016 (Doc. No. 11) are

adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s application for injunctive and other relief (Doc. No. 3) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01746-DAD-BAM Document 13 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 2