Pierce v. Unknown

Filing 32

ORDER Adopting Findings And Recommendation And Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 27 , 23 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/10/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

SEAVON PIERCE,

12
13

Case No. 1:15-cv-00650 LJO DLB PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

v.

14

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

[ECF Nos. 27, 23]

16
17

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18 forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on
19 November 12, 2014, in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the
20 Eastern District of California. The matter was designated as a civil rights action. Plaintiff filed a
21 First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2014. He filed a Second Amended Complaint on
22 December 15, 2014. On April 28, 2015, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division. By
23 separate order, the Court has screened and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint, with
24 leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
25

On September 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff asks that

26 the Court enjoin Defendants from obstructing justice, illegally confiscating mail, and concealing
27 evidence. On October 5, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation
28 that recommended Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be DENIED.

1

The Findings and

1 Recommendation was served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be
2 filed within thirty (30) days. Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed
3 objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

4

5 a de novo review. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings
6 and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8 1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 5, 2015, are ADOPTED in full;

9 2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 10, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2