(PC) Lipsey v. Reddy et al, No. 1:2017cv00569 - Document 57 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and DENYING Motion for Preliminary Injunction 49 , 51 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/29/2018. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR., Plaintiff, 11 12 13 vs. DR. REDDY, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-00569-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. No. 49, 51) Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking that the 21 Court direct CDCR to immediately send his property to his new housing location. (Doc. No. 49.) 22 On June 4, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that 23 the motion be denied. (Doc. No. 51.) The Magistrate Judge also granted Plaintiff an extension 24 of time to comply with a pending deadline based on the delay in processing his property. (Doc. 25 No. 50.) 26 The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 27 any objections must be filed within fourteen days after service of that order. (Doc. 51, at 3.) 28 That deadline has passed, and no objections were filed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 2 a de novo review of this case and carefully reviewed the entire file. The Court finds that the 3 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. adopted in full; and 6 7 The findings and recommendations, dated June 4, 2018 (Doc. No. 51), are 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed on May 29, 2018 (Doc. No. 49), is denied. 8 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ June 29, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
