(PC) Felix v. Dougherty ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYLO JEROME FELIX, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01472-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER FILED JUNE 9, 2023 14 S. DOUGHERTY, et al., (Doc. 23) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s motion of June 9, 2023, construed as a 22 motion for preliminary injunctive relief, be denied. (Doc. 23.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the 23 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” 24 (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 25 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff did not file objections and the time to do so has 26 now passed. 27 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 1 | Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court 2 | ORDERS: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 15, 2023 (Doc. 23) are 4 ADOPTED in full. 5 2. Plaintiffs motion filed June 9, 2023 (Doc. 22) is DENIED. 6 3. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. o | Dated: _ July 9, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28