(PC) Davis, Sr. v. Cloak ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EARL DAVIS SR, Case No. 1:22-cv-01632-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 25) 14 E. CLOAK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Earl Davis Sr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma paupers in this action 18 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed motions requesting a temporary restraining 19 order and a preliminary injunction. (Docs. 15, 16.) The magistrate judge found “this case does 20 not involve extraordinary circumstances warranting the issuance of a temporary restraining order 21 or preliminary injunction.” (Doc. 25 at 6; see also id. at 5-6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 22 recommended the motions be denied. (Id.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and in it, notified him 24 that any objections must be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 25 at 6.) In 25 addition, the Court informed him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may 26 result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 7, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 27 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not 28 file any objections, and the time to do so has expired. 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 2 | Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 | Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court 4 | ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on May 15, 2023 (Doc. 25) are 6 ADOPTED in full. 7 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 15) is DENIED. 8 3. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 16) is DENIED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: _ June 22, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28