(PC) Diaz v. Torcedo

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 23, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00916
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FELIPE POLANCO DIAZ, No. 2:21-cv-00916 KJM CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LYNCH, et al., 15 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 as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 17, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The 27 court considered plaintiff’s objections and found they do not clearly address the magistrate 28 judge’s findings and recommendations nor show plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief. 1 | However, the court notes plaintiff is not precluded from seeking a preliminary injunction in the 2 | future. In any future motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff must clearly “establish that he 3 || is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 4 | preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 1n the 5 || public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations, ECF No. 51, are adopted in full; 8 2. Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 43, 1s denied as moot; and 9 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 10 || proceedings. 11 | DATED: August 23, 2024.

13 4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28