Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bryan E. Ransom v. Rodolfo Aguirre

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 7, 2013

BRYAN E. RANSOM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RODOLFO AGUIRRE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Document 18)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed the action on August 16, 2012. On March 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction. 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 April 3, 2013, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff's Motion be denied. On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff's objections are based on his contention that the Defendants and time period at issue in his motion are properly before the Court in his First Amended Complaint. However, by separate Findings and Recommendations, the Court has dismissed these Defendants and all claims subsequent to October 2011. The Magistrate Judge was correct in concluding that the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue the requested relief, even if he would be entitled to such relief.

Plaintiff also raises a Type 2 diabetes diagnosis, but this does not alter the fact that that Court does not have jurisdiction over the time period, or Defendants, at issue. Plaintiff may file a new action to raise these issues.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 3, 2013, are ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20130507

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.