Opinion
1:21-cv-01364 JLT EPG (PC)
06-30-2022
JOHNATHAN SETH HARPER, Plaintiff, v. DAVID ROBINSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DOCS. 22, 27)
Plaintiff filed a motion requesting injunctive relief in this action. (Doc. 22.) The assigned magistrate judge found injunctive relief was not appropriate because no defendant has been served. (Doc. 27 at 5, citing, e.g., Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).) In addition, the magistrate judge determined that “Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in Plaintiff's favor.” (Id.) Furthermore, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to show “he would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief' or that the many forms of relief requested were narrowly drawn to correct the alleged violations of his federal rights. (Id. at 6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the request for injunctive relief be denied. (Id.)
The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff. It notified Plaintiff that any objections to it were to be filed within fourteen days from the date of service and that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Doc. 27 at 6-7, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, Plaintiff has not objected, and the time to do so expired.
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case.
Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. The Findings and Recommendations dated June 1, 2022 (Doc. 27) are adopted in full.
2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 22) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.