Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00376/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00376-10/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Benjamin Justin Brownlee asserts the defendants violated his civil rights arising under the 

Eighth Amendment. (See Docs. 18, 23.) Plaintiff now seeks a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction, related to access to the law library, return of personal properly, phone access, 

and his legal mail. (Doc. 40.)

The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to show he was entitled to the requested relief. 

(Doc. 44 at 4-5.) The magistrate judge determined “Plaintiff does not show a likelihood of irreparable 

harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” (Id. at 4.) In addition, Plaintiff does not show he faces 

imminent injury. (Id.) Further, the magistrate judge observed that “the Court does not have personal 

jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over prison officials at RJDCF, who Plaintiff contends are 

responsible for harassing him or impeding his case in various ways.” (Id. at 5.) Therefore, the 

magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Id.) 

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 

BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. BURNES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:23-cv-0376 JLT HBK

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

(Docs. 40, 44)

Case 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK Document 45 Filed 09/18/24 Page 1 of 2
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

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 44 at 5.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id. at 6, 

citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, 

and the time to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 22, 2024 (Doc. 44) are ADOPTED 

in full.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 

(Doc. 40) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK Document 45 Filed 09/18/24 Page 2 of 2