(PC) Wilson v. Mercado et al, No. 1:2022cv00278 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/14/2022. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WAYNE WILSON, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:22-cv-00278-DAD-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GABINO MERCADO, et al., (Doc. No. 14) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 25, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motions seeking a preliminary injunction (Doc. Nos. 3, 4) be 23 denied. (Doc. No. 14.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 24 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. 25 (Id. at 3.) On May 11, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 (Doc. No. 16.) Therein, plaintiff offers no authority or substantive argument rebutting the 27 magistrate judge’s conclusion that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants at this 28 preliminary screening stage of this action; that the court cannot determine plaintiff’s likelihood of 1 1 success on the merits; and that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how irreparable injury is likely 2 to occur in the absence of the issuance of an injunction. (Doc. No. 14.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 5 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 6 by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. 9 10 11 12 13 The findings and recommendations issued on April 25, 2022 (Doc. No. 14) are adopted; and 2. Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction (Doc. Nos. 3, 4) are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 14, 2022 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.