Paul D. Carr v. Neil McDowell

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 5:21-cv-00865-FWS-PVC

12 PAUL D. CARR, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [69] 15 v. AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION F OR ORDER TO SHOW 16 CAUSE AND TEMPORARY DR. SHERIF ABDOU, RESTRAINING ORDER [56] 18 Defendant.

1 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History 2 Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation issued on May 5, 2023 (the “Report and Recommendation”), (Dkt. 69), regarding the Motion for Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”), (Dkt. 56), filed by Plaintiff Paul D. Carr (“Plaintiff”), (Dkt. 11). Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, including each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein.

9 On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion. (Dkt. 56.) On March 24, 2023, Defendant Sherif Abdou (“Defendant”) filed an Opposition (the “Opposition”), (Dkt.

11 61), to the Motion. On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Response (the “Response”), (Dkt. 64), to the Opposition. On May 5, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt 69.) On or about June 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Statement of Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on TRO” (the “Objections”). (Dkt. 80.)

16 II. Analysis 17 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge.

25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. Haynes, 2021 WL 4744596, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021).

9 In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends “the Court issue an Order (1) accepting this Report and Recommendation, (2) denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order.” (Dkt.

12 69 at 12.) In the Objections, Plaintiff states the following: 14 Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to fully research remedies to his request for 15 preliminary injunction due to recent prison lockdowns. However, Plaintiff now 16 believes that he cannot overcome the technical flaws of his petition for relief.

17 Plaintiff thanks the court for the extension of time to respond.

19 (Dkt. 80 at 2.)

21 In this case, after conducting a de novo review of the content in the Objections, the court agrees with each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and Recommendation, including the recommendation “the Court issue an Order … denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause and Temporary | Restraining Order.” (Dkt. 69 at 12.) Accordingly, the Objections are OVERRULED | on their merits.' 3 In sum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the record, | including the Report and Recommendation, the Motion, the Opposition, the Response, | the Objections, and the other files and records of the case. After conducting a de novo | determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the | Objections pertain, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of | the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation.

9 II. Conclusion 10 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the Court | adopts the Report and Recommendation, including each of the findings of fact and | conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the Court DENIES PLAINTIFF’S | MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY | RESTRAINING ORDER (DKkt. 56).

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 Lo L//—— 1g | Dated: July 10, 2023 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE —————<“is.. (SS | | Although the court finds the contents of the Objections do not set forth any sufficient and/or cognizable objections (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)), the Court, in an abundance | of caution, overrules the contents of the Objections.