(PC) Lipsey v. Seitz et al, No. 1:2018cv00766 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 28 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 20 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/30/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
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 No. 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Docs. 20, 28) Defendants. 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 February 21, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) be denied. (Doc. 28.) 22 The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits 23 or that he will suffer irreparable harm without the requested relief. (Id. at 2). The magistrate judge 24 further found that Plaintiff’s requested relief is unrelated the claims in his complaint. (Id. at 3). 25 The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him 21 days to file 26 objections thereto. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to do so has passed.1 27 On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Emergency Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order Request.” (Doc. 30.) Although Plaintiff references the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, his requested relief is different from the requested relief in his previous motion (Doc. 20). Therefore, the magistrate 1 28 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations filed on February 21, 2020 (Doc. 28) are ADOPTED in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is DENIED. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2020 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 judge construed the filing (Doc. 30) as a new motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 35 at 2.) 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.