(PC) Calderon v. Covello

Opinion

JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, No. 2:23-cv-2049 WBS CSK P Plaintiff, v. ORDER P. COVELLO, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 May 14, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 72.) Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In the May 14, 2025 findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and motion for remedy at law be denied. (Id.) The magistrate judge found that, in these motions, plaintiff sought injunctive relief against individuals who were not parties to the instant action and regarding matters that were not related to the claims on which this action proceeds. (Id.) On May 23, 2025, plaintiff filed a pleading docketed as a motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 76.) This pleading appears to be further briefing in support of the motion for injunctive relief and motion for remedy at law addressed in the May 14, 2025 findings and recommendations. This pleading also does not cure the defects in the motion for injunctive relief and motion for remedy at law identified by the magistrate judge in the May 14, 2025 findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief filed May 23, 2025 (ECF No. 76) is construed as further briefing in support of plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and motion for remedy at law (ECF No. 67); 2. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 72) are adopted in full; and 3. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and motion for remedy at law (ECF No. 67) are denied. Dated: June 17, 2025 aA VY é.be-— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE /cald23v2049.801.2