Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01842/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01842-8/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

JOSHUA JASON DALKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01842-DAD-AC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

(Doc. Nos. 28, 37)

Plaintiff Joshua Jason Dalke 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 November 29, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 

28) be denied. (Doc. No. 37.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on 

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

days after service. (Id. at 10.) To date, no objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

/////

/////

Case 2:22-cv-01842-DAD-AC Document 41 Filed 01/17/24 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

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 November 29, 2023 (Doc. No. 37) 

are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 28) is denied; and

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

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01842-DAD-AC Document 41 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 2