(PC) Calloway v. Nieves ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY, No. 2:19-cv-1792 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. NIEVES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 29, 2021, the magistrate judge filed an order striking two of plaintiff’s 21 pleadings from the docket as filed in violation of a court order as well as findings and 22 recommendations. ECF No. 85. The order and findings and recommendations were served on all 23 parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations 24 were to be filed within fourteen days. On December 2, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the 25 findings and recommendations together with a request for reconsideration of the magistrate 26 judge’s order.1 ECF No. 86. 27 1 The filing date of plaintiff’s request is determined using the prison mailbox rule. See Houston v. 28 Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). ] In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 || court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court agrees 3 || with the finding that plaintiff has not in his motion for temporary restraining order and/or 4 | preliminary injunction made the showing required to obtain injunctive relief and for that reason 5 || will adopt the recommendation that the motion be denied. Under E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a 6 || magistrate judge’s order shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon 7 || review of the file, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s order striking the two documents was 8 | neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 29, 2021, are adopted to the extent 11 | consistent with this order; 12 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (ECF 13 || No. 78) is denied; and 14 3. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed November 29, 2021, 15 | ECF No. 85, is affirmed. 16 | DATED: August 18, 2022. 17 , / 18 19 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28