Opinion
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00705-AWI-GBC (PC)
10-12-2011
JON CHRIST, Plaintiff, v. JAMES HARTLEY, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
(ECF No. 12)
ORDER
Plaintiff Jon Christ ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's Complaint, which has not yet been screened by this Court. (ECF No. 1.)
On May 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 9.) In that Motion, Plaintiff stated that, on April 15, 2011, he was informed by prison staff that all electronic appliances were going to be taken from inmates. Plaintiff requested an injunction to stop that from happening.
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 September 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied. (ECF No. 12.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to meet the legal prerequisites for injunctive relief. No objections were filed.
"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)).
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, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed September 2, 2011, is ADOPTED; and
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ____