Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294-1/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

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12)

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the assigned 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On October 10, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 13) be denied. 

Plaintiff’s objections to those findings and recommendations were due within fourteen days. 

Plaintiff did not file objections to the findings and recommendations and the time to do so has 

passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

/////

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 12/22/17 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

undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by 

proper analysis. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 10, 2017 (Doc. No. 13) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12) are denied; 

and

3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 12/22/17 Page 2 of 2