Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02108/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02108-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN GILLEN STARR, 1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

vs. (Doc. 24.)

A. TREVINO, M.D., et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 4.)

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Robin Gillen Starr (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

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. 

On July 16, 2012, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that Plaintiff's

motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. On July 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed objections to the

findings and recommendations.

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

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

Court finds the motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied. A party seeking a

preliminary injunction must demonstrate that the party is likely to succeed on the merits, that the

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

1

Case 1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA Document 39 Filed 09/05/12 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

equities tips in the party’s favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural

Res. Def. Council, Inc., – U.S. – , 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008); National Meat Ass'n v. Brown, 599

F.3d 1093, 1097 (9 Cir. 2010). Here, Plaintiff’s December 22, 2011 motion for a preliminary th

injunction only alleges broad constitutional violations, along with some form of service. The

Winter factors are not even remotely addressed. Thus, the motion must be denied.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on July 16, 2012,

are adopted; and

2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 22, 2011, is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 5, 2012 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA Document 39 Filed 09/05/12 Page 2 of 2