Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01324/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01324-17/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

COREY MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAVEZ and SGT. SHELDON,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN 

EMERGENCY RESTRAINING ORDER 

(Doc. Nos. 54, 59)

Plaintiff Corey Mitchell, is appeared pro se

1

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and in his complaint has alleged a claim 

under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Chavez and Sergeant Sheldon for failure to 

protect plaintiff from a known risk of harm. Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, and 

this matter was therefore referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 1, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion for an emergency restraining order be 

 

1

Plaintiff appeared pro se at the time when he filed the documents relevant to this order. Since 

then, however, the court has issued an order appointing counsel on his behalf. (See Doc. No. 73.)

Case 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG Document 75 Filed 01/06/17 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

denied. (Doc. No. 59.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 

contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within twenty days. (Id.) The time to file 

objections to those findings and recommendations has passed, and no objections have been filed.

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

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 

and recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The November 1, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 59) are adopted in 

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency restraining order (Doc. No. 54) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG Document 75 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 2