(PC) Fregia v. Miranda ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK FREGIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-1068 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, SANCTIONS, AND DEFAULT 14 MIRANDA, et al., JUDGMENT (Docs. 112, 115, 116, and 119) 15 Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 16 FOR LIEN AS FRIVOLOUS (Doc. 126) 17 18 Mark Fregia is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Ridge and Savage 20 based on Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious 21 medical needs by continuing to prescribe medications that caused him to suffer lichen planus, and 22 then failed to treat such skin condition. 23 Plaintiff moved for sanctions, injunctive relief, and the entry of default judgment. (Doc. 24 112, 115, and 116.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief requested, 25 and recommended the motions be denied. (Doc. 119 at 2-4.) The Court served the Findings and 26 Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Id. 27 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may 28 result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id., 1 | quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 2 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 3 After the magistrate judge issued the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff filed a 4 | motion for lien that purports to place a lien on the estate of Chief District Judge Kimberly J. 5 | Mueller. (Doc. 126.) A review of the motion demonstrates it is based on similar arguments 6 | raised in Plaintiffs motions for injunctive relief, sanctions, and default judgment. As the 7 | magistrate judge determined, such arguments and filings are frivolous and do not show an 8 || entitlement to relief. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 10 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 11 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 18, 2024 (Doc. 119) are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions and injunctive monetary relief for crimes in related 15 cases (Doc. 112) is DENIED. 16 3. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, default judgment, and monetary injunctive relief 17 (Doc. 115) is denied. 18 4. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 116) is DENIED. 19 5. Plaintiff's motion for lien (Doc. 126) is DENIED as frivolous. 20 6. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 53 Dated: _ May 2, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28