IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 28, 2011
MAURICE JUNIOUS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 25, 2011, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's requests for temporary restraining orders be denied. (Doc. 19.) The assigned magistrate judge explained that Plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the legal prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief. First, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits. Second, Plaintiff failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. And third, Plaintiff failed to show that the balance of equities tips in his favor or that an injunction is in the public interest.
The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. The twenty-one day period has since expired, and as of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge filed February 25, 2011, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's October 18, 2010 motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 13) is DENIED; and
3. Plaintiff's January 5, 2011 motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 18) is DENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.