Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01503/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01503-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Brooks
Plaintiff
Harold Tate
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Plaintiff Rodney Brooks is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Harold Tate for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and deliberate indifference to a serious medical 

need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

preliminary injunction. ECF No. 15. 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 February 15, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations 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 fourteen days. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff filed 

an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on April 8, 2013. ECF No. 49.

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 carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

RODNEY BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD TATE,

Defendant.

 ________________ /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF=S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ECF Nos. 15, 37

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 72 Filed 03/12/14 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 15, 2013, is adopted in full; 

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, filed 

August 9, 2012, (Doc. No. 15) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 72 Filed 03/12/14 Page 2 of 2