(PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, No. 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECCOMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al., PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 15 Defendants. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 16 (Doc. Nos. 68, 86) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Larry William Cortinas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred 21 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 23 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order 24 be denied. (Doc. No. 86.) Specifically, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion because it 25 sought relief based upon alleged conduct that both differed from the allegations contained in the 26 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 28 injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying 1 || complaint.”). The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 2 || notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of 3 || service. (Doc. No. 86 at 5.) On January 23, 2023, plaintiff filed timely objections to the pending 4 | findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 87.) 5 In plaintiffs objections, he has failed to address the magistrate judge’s findings and 6 || recommendations regarding plaintiff's pending motion for a preliminary injunction and 7 || temporary restraining order. (/d. at 1-2.) Instead, plaintiff merely objects to the magistrate 8 | judge’s order, that was issued along with the pending findings and recommendations, denying 9 | plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and his request for a scheduling order.! (/d.) Thus, 10 | plaintiffs objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 11 || 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 13 || de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 14 || 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 23 24 25 26 |—_.-[IIN—_ ' The magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations were combined with an order ruling on 28 || five discovery motions. (Doc. No. 86 at 1.)