Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813-2/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

SCOTT KEITH ERNST,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVIS FRANCES RAMOS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. Nos. 13, 21)

Plaintiff Scott Keith Ernst is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 April 4, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

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

(Doc. No. 13) be denied because plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits

of his claims and because his request for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is premature 

since no defendant has yet been served in this action. (Doc. No. 21 at 4–5.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto must 

/////

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 27 Filed 09/06/22 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

be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 6) No objections have been filed and the 

time to do so has since passed.

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

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,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 4, 2022 (Doc. No. 21) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (Doc. 

No. 13) is denied; and

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

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 27 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 2