Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03040/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03040-5/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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH BECKER, No. 2:12-CV-3040-KJM-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

K. FANG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by

Eastern District of California local rules.

On August 5, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections

within a specified time. Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the findings and

recommendations.

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

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

including plaintiff’s supplementation of his reply, the court finds the findings and

1

Case 2:12-cv-03040-KJM-CMK Document 33 Filed 09/30/13 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

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. However, as the

magistrate judge recognized, because he found plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits, it

was not necessary for him to analyze plaintiff’s showing of irreparable injury. The court thus

adopts the findings and recommendations, except for the portion appearing on page eight, line

twelve through line twenty-six.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 5, 2013, are adopted

except as noted above; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his reply (Doc. 22) is granted; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 2) is denied.

DATED: September 30, 2013.

2

Case 2:12-cv-03040-KJM-CMK Document 33 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 2