(PC) Taylor v. Diaz et al, No. 1:2020cv00225 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/30/2020. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES RAY TAYLOR, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. RALPH DIAZ, et al., Defendants. No. 1:20-cv-00225-AWI-JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Docs. 3, 7) 15 16 Plaintiff James Ray Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 24, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 20 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary 21 injunction (Doc. 3) be denied. (Doc. 7.) The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s motion is 22 moot in light of Plaintiff’s transfer to a different prison. (Id. at 3.) The judge further found that 23 Plaintiff does not demonstrate a specific threat of harm. (Id. at 3-4.) The findings and 24 recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him 14 days to file objections thereto. 25 (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to do so has passed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 27 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 28 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. 3 4 5 The findings and recommendations filed on February 24, 2020 (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction (Doc. 3) is DENIED. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2020 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 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.