Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00399/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00399-16/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

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVEY, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00399 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER 

(Document 42)

Plaintiff Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 24, 2016. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Davey, Sexton, Vander Poel, Maxfield, 

Valdez, Acevedo and Razo. The action is currently in discovery. 

On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order. 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 July 13, 2016, 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 must be filed within thirty (30) days. Over thirty (30) days 

have passed and Plaintiff has not filed objections.

///

Case 1:16-cv-00399-DAD-GSA Document 50 Filed 08/25/16 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), 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 proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 13, 2016, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Document 40) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00399-DAD-GSA Document 50 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 2