Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06031/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06031-13/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

BRIDGETT BRADFORD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

G. SCHOONARD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV-F-04-6031 AWI DLB P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR SPEEDY REMOVAL,

WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED

AS REQUESTS FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[Doc. #25 & #39]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a 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 72-302. 

On September 6, 2006, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Plaintiff’s motions for speedy removal, which have been

construed as requests for injunctive relief, be denied. The Findings and Recommendations

contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within fifteen days. Over fifteen days have passed and Plaintiff did not file objections to the

Findings and Recommendations.

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

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 52 Filed 09/29/06 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

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. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the court is unable to issue any order against

individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). As such, the court cannot order Plaintiff moved to a

different prison.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on September 6, 2006 are ADOPTED in full;

and

2. Plaintiff’s motions for speedy removal, which have been construed as requests for

preliminary injunctive relief, (Documents #25 & #39) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 52 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2