1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM PATRICK GARCIA, No. 2:23-cv-02098-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. DENBERG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under

1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern 19 District of California local rules. 20 On August 5, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the 22 time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis: the Magistrate Judge correctly determined 1 | that the motion for a temporary restraining order could not be granted absent evidence showing 2 | (1) plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits of his claims and (2) imminent harm was likely 3 || absent a temporary restraining order. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 5, 2024, ECF No. 18, are adopted 6 | in full. 7 2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 1, is denied. 8 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 9 || proceedings. 10 | DATED: October 3, 2024. oUt 12 = 4 W/ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28