Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401-9/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY W. MUNDY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL 

STAFF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 

MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

(Docs. 42, 43, 44, 45)

Plaintiff Stanley A. Mundy is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 20, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for retraining order preventing transfer be denied. 

Doc. 44. On June 20, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge also issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce 

medical diet be denied. Doc. 45. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of 

service. Doc. 44 at 3; Doc. 45 at 3. No objections have been filed and the deadline to do so 

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 50 Filed 10/10/24 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

has passed. The court has previously denied a motion by plaintiff for a preliminary injunction

in this case. See Doc. 40. 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court has conducted a de novo review of 

this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations 

to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 20, 2023 (Docs. 44, 45) are 

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction 

(Doc. 42) is DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 43), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 50 Filed 10/10/24 Page 2 of 2