Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06287/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06287-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRK MONROE DAVIS, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6287 REC DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

vs.

[Doc.3]

D.G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Kirk Monroe Davis (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunction filed September 21, 2004 wherein plaintiff requests an order requiring defendants to provide

plaintiff with a “CDC 128-C Health Services Chrono” that authorizes the plaintiff to order and purchase

at his own expense, an egg crate mattress and a wheel chair cushion.

On November 10, 2004, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein which

were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. After an extension of time, plaintiff filed

objections to the Findings and Recommendations to the recommendation on January 14, 2005. 

In his objections, plaintiff challenges the legal authority of the Magistrate Judge to issue the

findings and recommendation because plaintiff did not consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate

Case 1:04-cv-06287-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/29/05 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

Judge to resolve this action. Plaintiff’s objections arewithout merit. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s refusal

to consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge to finally resolve this action, the Magistrate Judge

is authorized by statute and local rule to make findings and recommendations to the district court on

dispositive motions and to issue orders on non-dispositive matters.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 10, 2004, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed September 21, 2004, is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06287-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2