Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01684/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01684-14/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN SESSING,

Plaintiff,

v.

STU SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(ECF No. 63)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

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

On July 18, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 

(ECF No. 63) to deny Plaintiff’s June 29, 2016 motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF 

No. 59.) The Magistrate Judge imposed a fourteen day objection deadline. (ECF No. 

63.) On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a fourteen day extension of 

time to file his objections. (ECF No. 68.) On August 3, 2016, the Magistrate Judge 

granted Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff’s objections were filed on September 

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 79 Filed 09/16/16 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

12, 2016. (ECF No. 77.) He has provided no explanation for their untimeliness. No other 

parties have filed an objection.

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s objections and finds they lack merit. In 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 

file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on July 18, 2016 

(ECF No. 63) in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 59) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 79 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 2