(PC) Driver v. Kahlon

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY DRIVER, No. 2:25-cv-01287-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DR. KAHLON, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Billy Driver (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 18 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 7, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 5.) 24 However, the focus of Plaintiff’s objections appears to be his attempt to renew his motion 25 for injunctive relief. (Id. at 1–3.) In his declaration, Plaintiff claims he had a review of his health 26 care grievance CHCF HC 21001680 on August 23, 2021. (Id. at 4, 16–18.) But Plaintiff 27 provided no headquarters level review of grievance CHCF HC 21001680. Further, Plaintiff fails 28 to demonstrate how the 2021 grievance would exhaust his claims concerning the actions of 1 | defendants Dr. Kahlon, Dr. Delgadillo, Dr. Ozbayrak, and Asabor, all of which took place in 2 | 2025. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 4 | Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 | Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 6 | analysis. 7 To the extent Plaintiff again seeks a temporary restraining order by way of his objections, 8 | Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Plaintiff did not provide the certification required by Federal Rule 9 | of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) and failed to establish the elements required under Winter v. Nat. Res. 10 | Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). (See ECF No. 3 at 5-6.) 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 7, 2025 (ECF No. 3), are ADOPTED IN 13 | FULL; 14 2. Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without prejudice; 15 3. Plaintiff's putative renewed motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 5) is 16 | DENIED without prejudice; 17 4. This action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice; and 18 5. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 | Date: May 29, 2025

22 TROY L. NUNLEY 73 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28