Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01478/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01478-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN VAN GESSEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. THOMAS MOORE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01478-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

(Doc. No. 13)

Plaintiff Christopher Allen Van Gessel is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis with this civil rights action brought pursuant to the decision in Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302. 

On October 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 

No. 9) be denied. (Doc. No. 13.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the court lacks 

jurisdiction to issue the order sought by plaintiff. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen (14) 

days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed 

objections, and the time to do so has since passed. 

Case 1:18-cv-01478-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/14/20 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

27

28

2

/////

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

Accordingly, 

1. The October 29, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 13) are adopted in 

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 9) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01478-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2