Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00614/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00614-5/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

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

Plaintiff James Garrett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint in this action has been 

twice dismissed with leave to amend by the magistrate judge. (Doc Nos. 7, 11.) His second amended 

complaint is currently due by September 19, 2016. (Doc. 15.) 

On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking a 

preliminary injunction against the staff at CSATF related to medical treatment and regarding the 

processing of his administrative appeals. (Doc. 12.) On August 15, 2016, the magistrate judge issued 

findings and recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied for lack of 

jurisdiction, and because the claim for injunctive relief is moot due to Plaintiff’s transfer away from 

CSATF. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any 

JAMES GARRETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STU SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 14)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. 12) 

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 17 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 2
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

objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Doc 14, p. 5.) More than fourteen 

(14) days have passed, and no objections were filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de 

novo review of the 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 issued on August 15, 2016 (Doc. 14), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 12) is DENIED; and

3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 

with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 17 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 2