Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02072/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02072-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH,

Petitioner,

vs.

JAMES YATES, et al,

Respondents.

No. 2:06-cv-02072-JKS-KJM

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 17, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, which

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed

objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

Petitioner’s objections fail to address the central issue to the issuance of a preliminary

injunction, i.e., the threat of immediate injury. Associated Gen. Contractors of Calif. v.

Coalition of Econ. Equity, 950 F.3d 1401, 1410 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, as the Magistrate Judge

correctly found, the only matter presently pending before the Court is Respondent’s motion to

dismiss at Docket No. 15, to which Petitioner has filed his opposition (Docket No. 17). 

Consequently, there is a demonstrated lack of the threat of any immediate injury.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304,

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

file, with particular attention to those portions relevant or pertinent to the objections raised, the

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

Case 2:06-cv-02072-JKS-KJM Document 27 Filed 02/07/08 Page 1 of 2
ORDER

Smith v. Yates, 2:06-cv-02072-JKS-KJM 2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 17, 2007, are adopted in full; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction at Docket No. 21 is DENIED, without

prejudice.

Dated: February 7, 2008

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02072-JKS-KJM Document 27 Filed 02/07/08 Page 2 of 2