Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307-30/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

SHELDON RAY NEWSOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. Nos. 130, 133, 139)

Plaintiff Sheldon Ray Newsome is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action 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 Rule 302.

On June 22, 2023 and July 10, 2023, plaintiff filed motions requesting that the court order 

California Health Care Facility (which is not a named defendant in this action) to medically 

evaluate him because certain physicians (who are also not named defendants in this action) had 

refused to provide plaintiff with unspecified medical care. (Doc. Nos. 130, 133.) On July 31, 

2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations construing plaintiff’s 

motions as motions for preliminary injunctive relief and recommending that those motions “be 

denied as insufficiently related to the allegations against other defendants at issue in this suit.” 

(Doc. No. 139.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 154 Filed 01/10/24 Page 1 of 3
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

service. (Id. at 4.) On August 18, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 146.) On September 21, 2023, plaintiff filed supplemental 

objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 150.) Defendant 

Loterzstain, the only remaining defendant in this action, did not file any objections or a response 

to plaintiff’s objections to the pending findings and recommendations.

In his initial objections, plaintiff does not address the substance of the pending findings 

and recommendations. Rather, plaintiff merely expresses his disagreement with the magistrate 

judge’s decision to deny plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and motion for 

sanctions, neither of which pertain to the pending findings and recommendations recommending 

that plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 146 at 1–2.) In his 

supplemental objections, plaintiff vaguely asserts that he is not seeking preliminary injunctive 

relief but is instead hoping that the court will issue an “order to have him evaluated by unbias 

PhD [sic] for purpose of proof to this court that his green card doctors deliberately deny him a 

U.S. citizen his 8th amendment rights to adequate health care.” (Doc. No. 150 at 5.) Plaintiff’s 

objections in this regard simply provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 

recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including plaintiff’s initial and supplemental objections, the court finds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 31, 2023 (Doc. No. 139) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 130, 133) are denied; and

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 154 Filed 01/10/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 154 Filed 01/10/24 Page 3 of 3