Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490-7/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

ANTHONY SAMUEL CATO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05490-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 105)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 97, 98)

Plaintiff Anthony Samuel Cato (“plaintiff”) is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 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 March 28, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that an objection to the Findings

and Recommendations, if any, was to be filed within thirty days. 

On May 1, 2006, plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 122 Filed 05/31/06 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

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. As explained by

the Magistrate Judge, this court cannot grant injunctive relief

concerning actions over which this court does not have

jurisdiction. To the extent Plaintiff wants an injunction

regarding medical care, and this action is about Plaintiff’s

medical care, Plaintiff’s motions and objections are

insufficient. Plaintiff has failed to show sufficient evidence

that he is in imminent danger because of the discontinuation of

medical and mental health care, or food tampering. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 28, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief,

filed September 20, 2005, and September 22, 2005, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 122 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2