Lipsey v. Reddy, 1:17-cv-00569-LJO-BAM (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180702751
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. No. 49, 51) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction seek
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. No. 49, 51) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeki..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Doc. No. 49, 51)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking that the Court direct CDCR to immediately send his property to his new housing location. (Doc. No. 49.) On June 4, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the motion be denied. (Doc. No. 51.) The Magistrate Judge also granted Plaintiff an extension of time to comply with a pending deadline based on the delay in processing his property. (Doc. No. 50.)
The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections must be filed within fourteen days after service of that order. (Doc. 51, at 3.) That deadline has passed, and no objections were filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case and carefully reviewed the entire file. The Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations, dated June 4, 2018 (Doc. No. 51), are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, filed on May 29, 2018 (Doc. No. 49), is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
