(PC) Ernst v. Ramos, No. 2:2021cv00813 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/5/2022 ADOPTING in FULL 21 Findings and Recommendations, and DENYING 13 Motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.(Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT KEITH ERNST, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC (PC) v. DAVIS FRANCES RAMOS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. Nos. 13, 21) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Scott Keith Ernst is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 20 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 4, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 23 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction 24 (Doc. No. 13) be denied because plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits 25 of his claims and because his request for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is premature 26 since no defendant has yet been served in this action. (Doc. No. 21 at 4–5.) The findings and 27 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto must 28 ///// 1 1 be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 6) No objections have been filed and the 2 time to do so has since passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. 8 9 adopted in full; 2. 10 11 14 15 Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 13) is denied; and 3. 12 13 The findings and recommendations issued on April 4, 2022 (Doc. No. 21) are This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 5, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.