(PC) Downs v. Jiminez

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IVORY LEWIS DOWNS, JR., No. 2:22-cv-01021-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER M. JIMINEZ, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Ivory Lewis Downs, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On March 10, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations on March 25, 2025.1 (ECF No. 41.)

24 In this Court’s April 8, 2025 Order, the findings and recommendations were adopted with respect to the screening of the Complaint, but did not address Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary Since Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner’s court document is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for mailing).

1 | restraining order, which was also addressed in the March 10, 2025 findings and | recommendations. (ECF No. 42.)

3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this | Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the | Court finds the March 10, 2025 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and | by proper analysis.

7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations with respect to plaintiff's motion for a temporary | restraining order (ECF No. 37) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 10 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 29) is DENIED; and 11 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial || proceedings.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 | Date: May 29, 2025 Z, 16 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE