Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01779/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01779-8/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. McCABE, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv01779 AWI DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(Document 13, 14)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action.1 Plaintiff filed this action on November 5, 2013.

On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. 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 September 10, 2014, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that the motion 

be denied. Plaintiff did not file objections. 

 

1

Pursuant to Court order dated June 9, 2010, Plaintiff was deemed to be a prisoner with three strikes or more and 

therefore unable to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, on December 19, 2013, the Court 

determined that Plaintiff met the imminent danger exception for purposes of 1915(g). 

Case 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-GSA Document 30 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Even though some Defendants have now been served, they had not appeared in the action 

at the time of Plaintiff’s motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 10, 2014 are ADOPTED in 

full; and

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

(Document 14) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-GSA Document 30 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 2