Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580-15/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORRIS LEE MESTER, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. M. KIM, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06580-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 86)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Docs. 67,

69, 75)

Plaintiff Morris Lee Mester (“plaintiff”) is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 72-302.

On September 11, 2006, 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. 

To date, no party has filed an objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 93 Filed 12/13/06 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) and Local Rule 73-305, 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 11,

2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief,

filed April 12, 2006, as supplemented on April 26, 2006, May 31,

2006, and June 1, 2006, are DENIED on the grounds that the Court

lacks jurisdiction in this action to issue the order sought, and

that plaintiff has not met his burden as the moving party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 93 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 2