Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01179/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01179-17/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

DANIEL MASTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUZANNE KILLEN et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:11-cv-01179-DAD-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. Nos. 85, 113)

Plaintiff Daniel Masterson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

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

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

On October 19, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive and other relief related to certain items of 

personal and legal property be denied, particularly because the motion is not related to plaintiff’s 

claims presented in this action. (Doc. No. 113.) The findings and recommendations were served 

on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. 

More than thirty days have passed, and no objections to the findings and recommendations have 

been filed.

/////

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 125 Filed 01/09/17 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

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

Accordingly, 

1. The October 19, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 113) are adopted in 

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s application for injunctive and other relief (Doc. No. 85) is denied.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

The court notes that plaintiff has claimed that prison officials at CSATF confiscated and failed 

to forward to plaintiff two boxes of legal and personal property that include documents which 

plaintiff anticipates he will need to oppose any summary judgment motion filed in the future by 

the defendants in this action. (Doc. No. 85.) Counsel for defendants are advised that if plaintiff’s 

forecast comes to fruition and he is able to make some showing of his need for those documents 

to oppose summary judgment, the court will likely require defense counsel to inquire as to the

whereabouts and handling of plaintiff’s property. It may be appropriate for defense counsel to do 

so now in anticipation of such an order.

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 125 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 2