Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00766/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00766-10/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

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. SEITZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Docs. 20, 28)

Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 

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

On February 21, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 

recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) be denied. (Doc. 28.)

The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits 

or that he will suffer irreparable harm without the requested relief. (Id. at 2). The magistrate judge

further found that Plaintiff’s requested relief is unrelated the claims in his complaint. (Id. at 3). 

The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him 21 days to file 

objections thereto. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to do so has passed.1

 

1 On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Emergency Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining 

Order Request.” (Doc. 30.) Although Plaintiff references the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, his 

requested relief is different from the requested relief in his previous motion (Doc. 20). Therefore, the magistrate 

Case 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO Document 38 Filed 05/01/20 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), 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 proper analysis.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on February 21, 2020 (Doc. 28) are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

judge construed the filing (Doc. 30) as a new motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 35 at 2.)

Case 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO Document 38 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 2