(PC) Barrett v. Ciolli et al, No. 1:2020cv01802 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/31/2021. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Barrett v. Ciolli et al Doc. 21 Case 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG Document 21 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY BARRETT, 12 No. 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 A. CIOLLI, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. Nos. 14, 15) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Anthony Barrett is a federal inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 18 this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 19 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 25, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to return property, which the assigned 22 magistrate judge construed as a motion seeking the granting of injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 14.) 23 On June 2, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations 24 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 15.) Those 25 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 26 thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 4.) No objections have 27 been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG Document 21 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 2 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis. Among other things, the magistrate judge correctly points out that plaintiff has failed to 5 demonstrate irreparable harm would result if his requested injunction is denied, as his allegations 6 concern the seizure of perishable food, personal hygiene items, a radio, and other personal items. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations entered on June 2, 2021 (Doc. No. 15) are adopted 9 10 11 12 13 in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 14) is denied without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 31, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
