(PC) Hammler v. Grubbs

E.D. California

(PC) Hammler v. Grubbs

DecidedFebruary 24, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-02770

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Hammler v. Grubbs ((PC) Hammler v. Grubbs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Hammler v. Grubbs, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, No. 2:23-cv-2770-DJC-CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DEMITRIOUS GRUBBS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 27, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 22 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 26 are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 27 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 28 recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s 1 | analysis. While the Court has already dismissed the claims for injunctive relief as moot 2 | (ECF No. 39), the Court will adopt these Findings and Recommendations to ensure 3 | clarity on the docket. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 28) are adopted in full; and 6 2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order 7 | (ECF No. 27) is denied; and 8 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further 9 | pretrial proceedings. 10 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: _February 21, 2025 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 jhamm23ev2770.801 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, No. 2:23-cv-2770-DJC-CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DEMITRIOUS GRUBBS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 27, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 22 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 26 are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 27 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 28 recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s 1 | analysis. While the Court has already dismissed the claims for injunctive relief as moot 2 | (ECF No. 39), the Court will adopt these Findings and Recommendations to ensure 3 | clarity on the docket. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 28) are adopted in full; and 6 2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order 7 | (ECF No. 27) is denied; and 8 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further 9 | pretrial proceedings. 10 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: _February 21, 2025 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 jhamm23ev2770.801 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Hammler v. Grubbs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-hammler-v-grubbs-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack