Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00823/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00823-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD VILLAPANDO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CDCR, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14cv00823 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(Document 20)

Plaintiff Richard Villapando (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prison inmate proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 

13, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction. 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 18, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Plaintiff’s motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 

contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed 

within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff did not file objections.1

 

1 On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for a temporary restraining order. In his motion, he states 

that when he received the Court’s September 18, 2014, Findings and Recommendations, he realized that he had 

inadvertently filed a duplicate of his original motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court denied his original 

motion on July 25, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 10/28/14 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

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 18, 2014, are ADOPTED in 

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Document 17) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 10/28/14 Page 2 of 2