(PC) Duncan v. The California Healthcare Receivership Corp. et al, No. 1:2020cv01288 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING 3 Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/3/2020. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE RECEIVERSHIP CORP., et al., No. 1:20-cv-01288-AWI-SKO (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Docs. 3, 15) Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Diontae Johan Duncan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 14, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) be denied. (Doc. 15.) The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff fails to show that he will suffer irreparable harm without the requested relief, and that the requested relief is not narrowly tailored. (Id. at 2). The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him 14 days to file objections thereto. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff filed objections on October 26, 2020. (Doc. 17.) In his objections, Plaintiff does not dispute the magistrate judge’s findings, “but request[s] to leave without prejudice for future 1 2 ‘unpredictable situational’ scenarios.” (Id. at 1.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 3 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 4 objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 5 proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. 8 9 The findings and recommendations issued on October 14, 2020 (Doc. 15) are ADOPTED in full; and, 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is DENIED. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 3, 2020 SENIOR 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.