(PS) T.J. v. San Joaquin County District Attorney

Opinion

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-1503-TLN-JDP (PS) v. ATTORNEY, et al., Defendants. May 5, 2025, Plaintiff T.J. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order requesting the Court stay state court criminal proceedings against him. (ECF No. 6.) On June 4, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 11.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) This deadline passed and no objections were filed. On June 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a second motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 12.) This second motion will be addressed in a separate order. This order solely addresses the findings and recommendations filed on June 4, 2025, regarding Plaintiff’s first motion for a temporary restraining order filed on May 5, 2025. (See ECF Nos. 6, 11.) The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The proposed findings and recommendations filed June 4, 2025, (ECF No. 11), are ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order filed on May 5, 2025, (ECF No. 6), is DENIED; and 3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial matters. Date: August 8, 2025