(PC) Hendrix v. Gomez et al, No. 2:2021cv01062 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 12/21/2023 ADOPTING 44 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and DENYING 43 the portion of plaintiff's motion seeking a temporary restraining order.(Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMENIQUE HENDRIX, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 2:21-cv-01062-WBS-EFB (PC) ORDER J. GOMEZ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On August 2, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 21 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 22 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 23 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 24 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 25 the record and by the proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed August 2, 2023 are ADOPTED; 28 and 1 1 2 3 2. The portion of plaintiff’s motion appearing at ECF No. 43 seeking a temporary restraining order is DENIED. Dated: December 21, 2023 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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.
