(PS) Gonzalez Jr v. Butte County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSENDO GONZALEZ, Jr., 12 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-1491-TLN-JDP (PS) 13 v. 14 BUTTE COUNTY, et al., ORDER 15 Defendants. 16 17 On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff Rosendo Gonzalez Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for 18 Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 5.) On June 25, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and 19 recommendations recommending Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied for 20 failure to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. (ECF No. 7 at 5.) These findings 21 and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. This deadline has passed, 23 and no objections have been filed. 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The proposed findings and recommendations filed June 25, 2025, (ECF No. 7), are 4 ADOPTED; 5 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, (ECF No. 5), is DENIED; and 6 3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 7 matters. 8 Date: August 8, 2025 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28