govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00925-11

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
ANTHONY J. DAVIS, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
No. 1:25-cv-00925 JLT SAB (PC) 
 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
 RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION 
 FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 
 
 (Docs. 38, 39) 
 
 
Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be 
denied. (Doc. 39.) The Court served the findings and recommendations on Plaintiff, warned him 
that objections were due within 14 days, and advised that the “failure to file objections within the 
specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (Id. at 4-5, citing Wilkerson v. 
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed and the time to do so has 
passed. 
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 
case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including the objections, the Court concludes the 
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Among other 
things, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that there is a nexus between the complaints articulated in his 
request for injunctive relief and the claims in his complaint. See Saddiq v. Ryan, 703 F. App’x 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 2 
 
 
570, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (affirming denial of preliminary injunction because the 
prisoner did not establish a nexus between the claims of retaliation in his motion and the claims 
set forth in his complaint). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 13, 2026 (Doc. 39) are 
ADOPTED in full. 
2. Plaintiff’s motion seeking injunctive relief (Doc. 38) is DENIED. 
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 Dated: June 10, 2026 
 

Passage view · GavelSight