(PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, No. 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECCOMENDATIONS AND DENYING JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al., PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 15 Defendants. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 16 (Doc. Nos. 68, 86) 19 Plaintiff Larry William Cortinas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22 On January 5, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order be denied. (Doc. No. 86.) Specifically, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion because it sought relief based upon alleged conduct that both differed from the allegations contained in the underlying complaint. (Id. at 2 & n.1); see also Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med.

27 Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We hold that there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying || complaint.”). The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained || notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of || service. (Doc. No. 86 at 5.) On January 23, 2023, plaintiff filed timely objections to the pending | findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 87.)

5 In plaintiffs objections, he has failed to address the magistrate judge’s findings and || recommendations regarding plaintiff's pending motion for a preliminary injunction and || temporary restraining order. (/d. at 1-2.) Instead, plaintiff merely objects to the magistrate | judge’s order, that was issued along with the pending findings and recommendations, denying | plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and his request for a scheduling order.! (/d.) Thus, | plaintiffs objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and || recommendations recommending that his motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied.

12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this court has conducted a || de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings || and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

15 Accordingly, 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 5, 2023 (Doc. No. 86) are 17 adopted in full; and 18 2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order 19 (Doc. No. 68) is denied.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED. | pated: _ January 30, 2023 Dab A. 2, ayel 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE |—_.-[IIN—_ ' The magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations were combined with an order ruling on || five discovery motions. (Doc. No. 86 at 1.)