(PC) Wilson v. Meritt

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTION ORDER LURA MERRITT, et al., (Doc. 31) 15 Defendants.

17 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s “Motion for Protection Order,” which the Court construed as a motion for temporary and/or permanent injunctive relief. (Doc. 31.) The Court advised the Plaintiff that any objections were due within 14 days of the date of service (Id. at 6) and that the “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 22 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).)

23 Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has expired.

24 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 27 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 21, 2023 (Doc. 31) are ADOPTED in full.

1 2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 26) is DENIED.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ June 19, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE