Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00014/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00014-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 In addition to plaintiff’s December 1, 2005 motion, the court had benefit of plaintiff’s

1

January 30, 2006 reply as well as his February 23, 2006 objections to the January 30, 2006

findings and recommendations. The January 30, 2006 findings and recommendations were

vacated so the court could consider plaintiff’s January 30 reply.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A. DAVIES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0014 LKK JFM P

vs.

Dr. K. LOW,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On July 26, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On August 14 2006,

plaintiff was granted until August 27, 2006 in which to file objections to the findings and

recommendations, and plaintiff was advised that no further extensions of time would be granted.1

Case 2:03-cv-00014-LKK -JFM Document 90 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

On August 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Ex Parte Request for

Reconsideration.” Plaintiff seeks additional time to file objections.

However, on August 28, 2006, the magistrate judge issued findings and

recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. In

light of that recommendation, granting plaintiff an extension of time to file objections to the

findings and recommendations addressing plaintiff’s December 1, 2005 motion for temporary

restraining order would be futile. When seeking injunctive relief, plaintiff must show a "fair

chance of success on the merits" of his claim. Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International,

Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982), quoting Benda v. Grand Lodge of International

Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir. 1979). Based on

the record at present, plaintiff cannot make such a showing. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 26, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s December 1, 2005 motion for temporary restraining order is denied.

DATED: September 11, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00014-LKK -JFM Document 90 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2