From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Khademi v. Roseville Police Dep't

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 8, 2022
2:21-cv-00966-DAD-DMC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-00966-DAD-DMC (PC)

11-08-2022

DAVOOD KHADEMI, Plaintiff, v. ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(DOC. NOS. 19, 25)

Plaintiff Davood Khademi is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On March 9, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 19) be denied. (Doc. No. 25.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 3.) On March 28, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 26.) Plaintiff has not since communicated with the court.

This case was reassigned to the undersigned district judge on August 25, 2022. (Doc. No. 29.)

The service copy of the court's orders dated July 27, 2022 and August 25, 2022, which were mailed to plaintiff at his address of record, were returned to the court as “Undeliverable, Not at Facility” and “Undeliverable, Refused.”

Although plaintiff filed objections thereto, plaintiff does not meaningfully object to the findings and recommendations. Notably, plaintiff does not provide any clarification as to the basis for his motion for injunctive relief despite the magistrate judge having noted that plaintiff's motion was rambling and quite difficult to decipher, making it difficult to discern what relief plaintiff seeks, “against whom, and for what reason.” (See Doc. No. 25 at 2.) In addition, plaintiff does not address the magistrate judge's finding that “nothing in Plaintiff's filing suggests the likelihood of irreparable harm absent intervention by the Court.” (Id.) For these reasons, plaintiff's objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recomm endati ons.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 9, 2022 (Doc. No. 25) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 19) is denied; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Khademi v. Roseville Police Dep't

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 8, 2022
2:21-cv-00966-DAD-DMC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022)
Case details for

Khademi v. Roseville Police Dep't

Case Details

Full title:DAVOOD KHADEMI, Plaintiff, v. ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 8, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-00966-DAD-DMC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022)