Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00650/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00650-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00650 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[ECF Nos. 27, 23]

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

November 12, 2014, in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California. The matter was designated as a civil rights action. Plaintiff filed a 

First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2014. He filed a Second Amended Complaint on 

December 15, 2014. On April 28, 2015, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division. By 

separate order, the Court has screened and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint, with 

leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

On September 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff asks that 

the Court enjoin Defendants from obstructing justice, illegally confiscating mail, and concealing 

evidence. On October 5, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation 

that recommended Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be DENIED. The Findings and 

Case 1:15-cv-00650-DAD-DLB Document 32 Filed 11/10/15 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

Recommendation was served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be 

filed within thirty (30) days. Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed 

objections.

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

a de novo review. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds 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, filed October 5, 2015, are ADOPTED in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00650-DAD-DLB Document 32 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2