Flowers v. Davey, et al.

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denial of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order; ORDER DENYING 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 09/18/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUPERT FLOWERS, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. DAVE DAVEY, et al., 15 Defendants. Case No. 1:16-cv-01363-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF Nos. 6, 18) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Rupert Flowers (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On July 18, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 20 that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed September 26, 2016, be denied for lack 21 of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 18.) Those Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff 22 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 23 service. (Id. at 5.) More than fourteen days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed timely 24 objections. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 27 the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 28 analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 4 The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 18, 2017, (ECF No. 18) is adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 18, 2017 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?