Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00832/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00832-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. Nos. 35, 37)

Plaintiff Jerome Markiel Davis is appearing 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 302.

This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Roberts in her individual 

capacity for deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. On October 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court order CDCR 

to provide him with envelopes, stationary, and pens, on the basis that he is an indigent pro per 

inmate. (Doc. No. 35.)

On November 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, construing plaintiff’s motion as seeking preliminary injunctive relief and 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied because the court lacks jurisdiction over 

Case 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM Document 38 Filed 01/23/20 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

individuals who are not parties to this action. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days 

in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff has not filed 

any objections, and the time do so has now passed.

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

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

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 19, 2019 (Doc. No. 37) 

are adopted in full; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed on October 23, 2019 (Doc. 

No. 35) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM Document 38 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 2