Lipsey v. Seitz

Full title: CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR., Plaintiff, v. B. SEITZ, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 30, 2020

No. 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO (PC)

04-30-2020

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR., Plaintiff, v. B. SEITZ, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Docs. 20, 28)

Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. 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 February 21, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) be denied. (Doc. 28.) The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits or that he will suffer irreparable harm without the requested relief. (Id. at 2). The magistrate judge further found that Plaintiff's requested relief is unrelated the claims in his complaint. (Id. at 3). The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him 21 days to file objections thereto. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to do so has passed.¹

1 On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a document titled, "Emergency Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order Request." (Doc. 30.) Although Plaintiff references the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, his requested relief is different from the requested relief in his previous motion (Doc. 20). Therefore, the magistrate judge construed the filing (Doc. 30) as a new motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 35 at 2.) --------

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

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on February 21, 2020 (Doc. 28) are ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2020

/s/_________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE