Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00150/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00150-4/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

GARY RAY BETTENCOURT,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. PARKER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00150-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

(Doc. Nos. 5, 12)

Plaintiff Gary Ray Bettencourt is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined to consent to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction over this action for all purposes (Doc. No. 9), and the matter was therefore 

referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302.

On February 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction against 

defendants L. Parker, DDS; H. Crooks, DDS; and L. Guzman, a dental assistant. (Doc. No. 5.) 

Therein plaintiff asserted that all of his claims are true, and these defendants should be arrested 

for criminal prosecutions, and their wages should be garnished for disfiguring Plaintiff’s healthy 

teeth. (Id.) The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Case 1:16-cv-00150-KES-BAM Document 17 Filed 09/13/16 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

On August 4, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. No. 12.) 

The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 

objections thereto must be filed within fourteen days of the date of service of that order. (Doc. 

No. 12 at 3.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on August 18, 2016. (Doc. No. 13.) 

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, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 

proper analysis.

The nature of plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations is unclear to the 

undersigned. It appears possible plaintiff is concerned the magistrate judge was recommending 

dismissal of this case. (Doc. No. 13 at 1, 3.) If that is the concern, plaintiff is mistaken, as the 

magistrate judge recommended in the findings and recommendation only that plaintiff’s motion 

for preliminary injunction be denied. As explained by the magistrate judge, it is true that 

plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous, malicious, or 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2); 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). However, plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened to determine 

whether it is subject to dismissal. The complaint will be screened in due course. Plaintiff’s 

action is not being dismissed at this time. The undersigned is not persuaded by plaintiff’s 

objections, and agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Accordingly, the findings and recommendations issued August 4, 2016 (Doc. No. 12) are 

adopted in full and plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 5) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00150-KES-BAM Document 17 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 2