Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01697/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01697-5/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

MONICO J. QUIROGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THEODORE KING,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(ECF No. 22)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff initiated this action on November 9, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) His second 

amended complaint (ECF No. 20) is awaiting screening. On July 22, 2016, the 

Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations (ECF No. 22) to deny Plaintiff’s

February 22, 2016 motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 11.) On August 1, 

2016, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. (ECF No. 23.) 

Plaintiff’s objection is comprised of one sentence: “Objection to Magistrate Judge’s 

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 26 Filed 08/26/16 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

findings and recommendations due to investigation negligence and sexual assault 

because of investigation.” (ECF No. 23.)

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 

entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 

record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s terse and ambiguous objection provides no 

basis to reject the Findings and Recommendation. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on July 22, 2016 

(ECF No. 22) in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 11) is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 26 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 2