Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01090/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01090-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary D. Bearden
Plaintiff
Linda Smart
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY D. BEARDEN,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 1090 AWI WMW P 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 RE MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE 

 RELIEF (DOCS 5, 9, 11)

LINDA SMART,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action. This

action proceeds against Defendant Linda Smart, a Correctional Counselor at Corcoran

State Prison. Plaintiff, incarcerated at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, brings this

action against Defendant Smart for her conduct at a classification hearing on May 18,

2006. Defendant Smart allegedly left Plaintiff standing for 5 hours, despite Plaintiff’s back

condition. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff advised Defendant Smart that he was awaiting

spinal fusion surgery.

Plaintiff has filed requests for injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s motions consist of

restatements of the allegations of the complaint, along with additional allegations. Plaintiff

requests the Court to consider the allegations in his complaint. None of the motions

comply with the procedural requirements of Local Rule 65-231. Further, this action can

Case 1:06-cv-01090-AWI-WMW Document 21 Filed 08/02/07 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

2

not proceed until Plaintiff submits a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Despite three extensions of time, Plaintiff has failed to do so.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for

injunctive relief be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the th

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01090-AWI-WMW Document 21 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 2