(PC) Harper v. Robinson ( 2022 )

1 \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNATHAN SETH HARPER, No. 1:21-cv-01364 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 DAVID ROBINSON, et al., (Docs. 22, 27) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed a motion requesting injunctive relief in this action. (Doc. 22.) The assigned 18 magistrate judge found injunctive relief was not appropriate because no defendant has been 19 served. (Doc. 27 at 5, citing, e.g., Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).) In addition, 20 the magistrate judge determined that “Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the 21 merits or the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships 22 tipping in Plaintiff’s favor.” (Id.) Furthermore, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to 23 show “he would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief” or that the many forms of 24 relief requested were narrowly drawn to correct the alleged violations of his federal rights. (Id. at 25 6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the request for injunctive relief be denied. (Id.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff. It notified Plaintiff that 27 any objections to it were to be filed within fourteen days from the date of service and that the 28 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 1 (Doc. 27 at 6-7, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. 2 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, Plaintiff has not objected, and the time 3 | to do so expired. 4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 5 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 6 || Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court 7 | ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated June 1, 2022 (Doc. 27) are adopted in full. 9 2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 22) is denied. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ June 30, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28