Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00510/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00510-9/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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARLOS MANWELL DAWSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0510 KJM AC P 

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 as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On August 19, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff received 

several extensions of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF Nos. 26, 

29, 30), but has not done so. The day after the findings and recommendations were issued, 

plaintiff filed another motion for temporary restraining order reiterating his claims. ECF No. 20. 

 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 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 36 Filed 02/22/23 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 

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 findings and recommendations filed August 19, 2022 (ECF No. 22), are adopted 

in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 13, 18, 19, 20) are 

DENIED; and 

3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. 

DATED: February 21, 2023. 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 36 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 2