(PC) Windham v. Pike et al, No. 2:2022cv02007 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 01/02/23 ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations in full and DENYING 3 Motion for TRO. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
(PC) Windham v. Pike et al Doc. 16 Case 2:22-cv-02007-TLN-KJN Document 16 Filed 01/03/23 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 CHARLES WINDHAM, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:22-cv-02007-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. MICHAEL PIKE, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 21, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-02007-TLN-KJN Document 16 Filed 01/03/23 Page 2 of 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 21, 2022, are adopted in full; and 3 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 4 DATED: January 2, 2023 5 6 7 8 9 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.