(PC) Brownlee v. Burnes

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0376 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY ) RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY J. BURNES, et al., ) INJUNCTION ) 15 Defendants. ) (Docs. 40, 44) )

17 Benjamin Justin Brownlee asserts the defendants violated his civil rights arising under the Eighth Amendment. (See Docs. 18, 23.) Plaintiff now seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, related to access to the law library, return of personal properly, phone access, and his legal mail. (Doc. 40.)

21 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to show he was entitled to the requested relief.

22 (Doc. 44 at 4-5.) The magistrate judge determined “Plaintiff does not show a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” (Id. at 4.) In addition, Plaintiff does not show he faces imminent injury. (Id.) Further, the magistrate judge observed that “the Court does not have personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over prison officials at RJDCF, who Plaintiff contends are responsible for harassing him or impeding his case in various ways.” (Id. at 5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Id.) 28 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 44 at 5.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (dd. at 6, || citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, || and the time to do so has passed.

5 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

6 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 22, 2024 (Doc. 44) are ADOPTEL 9 in full.

10 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 11 (Doc. 40) is DENIED.

13 ||IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ September 18, 2024 ( LAW ph L. wary 15 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE