(PS) Roots v. Fox

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONALD ROOTS, No. 2:24-cv-01767-DC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ROBERT W. FOX, et al. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20) 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Donald Roots is proceeding pro se in this civil action. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19 On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the court “expedite” an order granting preliminary injunctive relief as requested in his complaint, which the court construes as a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 19.) In his complaint, Plaintiff requests the court provide injunctive relief in a criminal case in state court and that his “record shall be restored with restraining Order[s] placed on each defendant, arresting them for the purpose of a trial by FACTS.” (Doc. No. 1 at 11.) In his pending motion, Plaintiff requests an order from this court to “restrain” “those persons who bought [his] vehicles from Alfa Brothers Towing et, al.” (Doc. No. 19 at 2.)

27 On March 10, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 19) be denied | because the motion is procedurally deficient and premature. (Doc. No. 20 at 2-3.) The magistrate | judge also found Plaintiff did not demonstrate he was likely to suffer irreparable harm or a | likelihood of success on the merits of any claim, and that the injunctive relief he seeks is barred | by the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Ud. at 3-4.) The findings and || recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were | to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (/d. at 6.)

7 On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and || recommendations. (Doc. No. 23.) In his objections, Plaintiff does not meaningfully address the | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Instead, Plaintiff requests a hearing and recites || various legal concepts in support of his motion. (/d. at 1-4.) Plaintiff's objections do not provide 11 a basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.

12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this court has conducted a | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiffs | objections, the court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record | and by proper analysis.

16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 10, 2024 (Doc. No. 20) are 18 ADOPTED in full; 19 2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 19) is DENIED; and 20 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 21 proceedings.

73 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ | Dated: _ April 22, 2025 □□□ Os Dena Coggins 25 United States District Judge