Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00054-11/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

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00054-OWW-DLB

PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING

MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF NOS. 44, 59, 61)

Plaintiff Marcus R. Ellington (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in

the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 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 302.

On June 3, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty days. 

Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations

on June 11, 2010.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having

1

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 65 Filed 06/29/10 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

carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis. The Magistrate Judge properly found that the Court

lacked jurisdiction in this action to impose preliminary

injunctive relief. The Director of the CDCR is not a Defendant

in this action; the Director was never named as a Defendant in

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which is the operative

pleading in this action. (Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 23.) 

Plaintiff cites to no legal authority to support his contention

that the Director is a Defendant.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 3, 2010,

is adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, filed

December 24, 2009 and May 27, 2010, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 65 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 2