Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01151/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01151-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWTIS DONALD RHODEN, Case No. 1:07-cv-01151-LJO DLB PC

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

vs. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

STEPHEN W. MAYBERG, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

Defendants. MATTER JURISDICTION.

(Doc. 3)

 /

Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has

filed this civil rights action seeking relief 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 72-302.

On July14, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was

served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On July 24, 2008, plaintiff filed an Objection. 

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 the Findings and

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

Case 1:07-cv-01151-BLW-LMB Document 27 Filed 09/02/08 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 14, 2008, is adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order / injunctive relief, filed August 8,

2007 is DENIED; and 

3. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim concerning the potential confiscation of his

laptop computer is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01151-BLW-LMB Document 27 Filed 09/02/08 Page 2 of 2