Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290-14/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2290 LKK KJN P

vs.

BRAD WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.

On January 28, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, 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, with one exception. As noted by this court’s order of February 24, 2010

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 75 Filed 03/03/10 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

2

(adopting the outcome, but not the analysis, recommended by the Magistrate Judge), the “sliding

scale” test for preliminary injunctive relief articulated by Coalition for Economic Equity v.

Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997) was rejected in part by Winter v. Natural

Res. Def. Council, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375-76 (2008). Although the court notes

this change for future reference, Winter has no effect on the resolution of the instant motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 28, 2010 (Docket No. 57), are

adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for special hearing (Docket No. 34), construed as a motion

for injunctive relief, is denied.

DATED: March 3, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 75 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2