Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074-13/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN D. BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. ROMERO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 12-cv-02074-DAD-DLB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. Nos. 56, 63)

Plaintiff Kevin D. Bryant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 26, 2012. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 December 9, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and/or motion for 

alternate way of communicating with other inmates be denied. (Doc. No. 63.) Those findings 

and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On February 11, 2016, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 

No. 84.) Defendants did not file a reply. 

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 that the

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 89 Filed 03/10/16 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 are supported by the record and by proper legal analysis. As, the 

assigned magistrate judge concluded, this court lacks jurisdiction to grant the specific relief which 

plaintiff has requested.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed December 9, 2015, are ADOPTED in full; 

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and/or motion for an alternate way of 

communicating with other inmates is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 89 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 2