Lipsey v. Seitz et al

Filing 59

ORDER ADOPTING 51 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING 44 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/9/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

B. SEITZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Docs. 44, 51)

16
17

Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge

19

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

20

On July 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that Plaintiff’s third motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 44) be denied.

22

(Doc. 51.) The magistrate judge found that (1) Plaintiff failed to show that he is likely to suffer

23

irreparable harm without the requested relief and (2) his requested injunction is unrelated to the

24

claims in this lawsuit. (Id. at 3-4). The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff

25

and provided him 21 days to file objections thereto. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff filed timely objections on

26

August 17, 2020. (Doc. 57.)

27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

1

objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

2

proper analysis. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s finding that Plaintiff fails to show

3

he will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested injunction. The Court also

4

agrees that Plaintiff’s motion is unrelated to the operative claims in this action and that his

5

requested relief is beyond the scope of “that to which he would be entitled if he were to succeed

6

at trial in this case.” (Doc. 51 at 4.)

7

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

8

1.

9
10

The findings and recommendations filed on July 27, 2020 (Doc. 51) are ADOPTED
in full; and,

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 44) is DENIED.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2020
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2