-KJN (PS) Lawson v. Citicorp Trust Bank et al, No. 2:2011cv01163 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/22/11: 13 Findings and recommendations filed on June 27,2011 are moot and the court need not reach their merits. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the findings and recommendations on these grounds. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-KJN (PS) Lawson v. Citicorp Trust Bank et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TRACY D. LAWSON, 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 13 No. CIV-S-11-1163-KJM-KJN-PS CITICORP TRUST BANK, et al., 14 15 Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER On June 27, 2011, the magistrate judge assigned to this case filed findings and 16 17 recommendations regarding plaintiff’s second application for a temporary restraining order. 18 (ECF 13.) The magistrate judge recommended that the application be denied on procedural 19 grounds, but permitted plaintiff to file a third application for emergency relief prior to the 20 resolution of the findings and recommendations entered on June 27, 2011. Plaintiff did not file 21 objections to the June 27, 2011 findings and recommendations, but filed a third application for 22 emergency relief on July 8, 2011, which sought the same relief as the second such application. 23 The undersigned denied plaintiff’s third application on the merits. (Order, July 11, 2011, ECF 24 22.) 25 //// 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In light of the denial of plaintiff’s third application for emergency relief on the 2 merits, the proposed findings and recommendations filed on June 27,2011 are moot and the court 3 need not reach their merits. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the 4 findings and recommendations on these grounds. 5 DATED: August 22, 2011. 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 laws1163.jo.tro 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.
