Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01230/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01230-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

EARON DREVON DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL A. JACQUES,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-01230-DAD-JDP (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. Nos. 6, 8)

Plaintiff Earon Drevon Davis proceeding pro se and in forma paurperis, initiated this civil 

action on June 27, 2023. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 24, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 6) be denied. 

(Doc. No. 8.) In particular, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s motion merely “argues that 

several of his rights were violated during the pendency of his family law matter,” but the motion 

does not address any of the requirements for obtaining an order granting injunctive relief, namely, 

that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims and would suffer irreparable harm 

absent the issuance of a temporary restraining order. (Id. at 5.) Moreover, the findings and 

recommendations concluded that plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the 

merits because plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief in the operative first 

Case 2:23-cv-01230-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/31/24 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

amended complaint. (Id.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

service. (Id. at 6.) On October 31, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 11.)

In his objections, plaintiff does not meaningfully address the pending findings and 

recommendations. Rather, plaintiff merely restates the arguments that he had presented in his 

motion for a temporary restraining order and that the magistrate judge already rejected in the 

findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s objections simply provide no basis upon which to 

reject the pending findings and recommendations.

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 24, 2023 (Doc. No. 8) are 

adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 6) is denied; and

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

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01230-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/31/24 Page 2 of 2