Jackson v. Davis, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 20 Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/15/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE JACKSON,

12

No. 1:16-cv-00148-DAD-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

R. DAVIS, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 20, 21)

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18
19

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

20

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On January 23, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order preventing

22

his transfer to another institution. (Doc. No. 20.) On February 3, 2017, the assigned magistrate

23

judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied and

24

provided that any objections to that recommendation be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. No.

25

21.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections to those findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the

26
27

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

28

/////
1

1

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

2

analysis.

3

Accordingly,

4

1. The February 3, 2017 findings and recommendations are adopted (Doc. No. 21); and

5

2. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 20) is denied.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 15, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2