(PC) Mrozek v. Eaton et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's 2 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 1/28/2025. (Deputy Clerk CRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRADLEY JAMES MROZEK, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. PATRICK EATON, et al., Defendants. No. 1:24-cv-00664-KES-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Docs. 2, 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint along with a motion requesting a 22 preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. Docs. 1, 2. On June 17, 2024, the 23 assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to deny plaintiff’s motion. 24 Doc. 15. Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the deadline to do so has passed. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 27 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 28 1 1 2 3 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 17, 2024, Doc. 15, are adopted in full; and, 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, Doc. 2, is DENIED. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 28, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?