Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01768/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01768-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CASE AS DUPLICATIVE

(Doc. No. 13, 20)

Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is proceeding 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(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On January 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

recommending that the instant action be dismissed as duplicative of Martinez v. Standon, Case 

No. 1:19-cv-00845-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2019) and Martinez v. Lewis., No. 1:19-

cv-00812-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019). (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were due 

within twenty-one (21) days of service of the order. (Id.) No objections were filed and the time 

to do so has now passed.

/////

Case 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 04/09/20 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

While the above findings and recommendations were pending, the magistrate judge issued 

another set of findings and recommendations on March 6, 2020, recommending that plaintiff’s 

motion for an emergency preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20.) Those findings

and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were 

due within fourteen (14) days of service. (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff filed timely objections on 

March 16, 2020. (Doc. No. 21.) 

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 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 9, 2020 and March 6, 2020

(Doc. Nos. 13, 20) are adopted in full;

2. The instant action is dismissed as duplicative; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 19) is 

denied; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 2