(PC) Talamantes v. Merced County Jail et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations and Denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/4/2021. (Jessen, A)

Case 1:20-cv-01643-DAD-GSA Document 16 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY TALAMANTES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:20-cv-01643-DAD-GSA (PC)

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

MERCED COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
(Doc. No. 13)

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Jeffrey Talamantes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

20
21

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied due to a lack of

22

jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 13.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the preliminary relief

23

sought by plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims upon which the case proceeds, and that

24

the court lacked personal jurisdiction to order injunctive relief because no defendants have yet

25

appeared in this action. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file objections

26

to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3) The time for filing objections has since passed,

27

and no objections have been filed.

28

/////
1

Case 1:20-cv-01643-DAD-GSA Document 16 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2
1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

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

3

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

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6

The findings and recommendations issued on June 8, 2021 (Doc. No. 13) are
adopted in full;

7

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 11) is denied; and

8

3.

The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

9
10
11
12

proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 4, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2