Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00912/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00912-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
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

KRISTOFFER ALLEN JOSEPHSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOYCE OLSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-00912-DAD-DMC (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. Nos. 4, 21)

Plaintiff Kristoffer Allen Josephson proceeds pro se in this civil action. 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 September 25, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 

No. 4) be denied because plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his 

claims or that he is under any threat of irreparable harm. (Doc. No. 21 at 3.)1 The findings and 

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

1

 The assigned magistrate judge noted that plaintiff’s motion was largely “undecipherable” but 

contained a “one-page list of items of personal property which plaintiff claims were improperly 

seized.” (Doc. No. 21 at 3.) 

Case 2:24-cv-00912-DAD-DMC Document 22 Filed 01/15/25 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.) 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 September 25, 2024 (Doc. No. 21) 

are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4) is denied; and

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

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00912-DAD-DMC Document 22 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 2