Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01874-9/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

MICHAEL A. CRAIG,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENA JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01874-DAD-AC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. Nos. 26, 29)

Plaintiff Michael A. Craig is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

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 October 22, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 

prohibiting defendants from making verbal threats towards him for filing inmate grievances be 

denied. (Doc. No. 29 at 4–5.) The assigned magistrate judge concluded that, in light of the 

screening order finding that plaintiff’s second amended complaint failed to state a claim for 

which relief may be granted, plaintiff had not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits of his claims. (Id. at 5.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on 

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 

Case 2:22-cv-01874-DAD-AC Document 33 Filed 01/15/25 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

days after service. (Id. at 6.) On December 23, 2024, after receiving an extension of time, 

plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 32.)

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s objections and observes that they contain several pages 

of legal citation, inmate grievance forms, medical records, and prison disciplinary information. 

(Id.) However, the court finds that plaintiff has not articulated any basis in his objections upon 

which the findings and recommendations should be rejected as “clearly erroneous or contrary to 

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 22, 2024 (Doc. No. 29) are 

adopted in full; 

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

(Doc. No. 26) is denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01874-DAD-AC Document 33 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 2