Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01783-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WANG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01783-AWI-GBC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N D E N Y I N G

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF

(ECF Numbers #23 & #25)

ORDER

Plaintiff Timothy Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed January 13,

2011. (ECF No. 16.) 

On August 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order.

(ECF No. 23.) In that Motion, Plaintiff requested that Defendants be required to provide

adequate medical care. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged he has been deprived of medical

care, medical appliances, and medication since August 21, 2009. 

1

Case 1:10-cv-01783-DLB Document 29 Filed 12/23/11 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

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 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a

Findings and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order be denied. (ECF No. 25.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff

failed to meet the legal prerequisites for injunctive relief. No objections were filed. 1

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 Recommendation to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed September 2, 2011, is ADOPTED;

and

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 23, 2011 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the

1

merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City

of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council,

129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)).

2

Case 1:10-cv-01783-DLB Document 29 Filed 12/23/11 Page 2 of 2