Sanders v. Dickerson et al, No. 3:2009cv00299 - Document 96 (D. Or. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Therefore, I ADOPT the F&R 91 as my own opinion, and plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 85 is DENIED. Signed on 4/15/2010 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ROGER D. SANDERS, No. CV 09-299-ST Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER v. SHERIFF JEFF DICKERSON et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On March 26, 2010, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#91) in the above-captioned case recommending that I DENY plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#85). No objections were filed. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate PAGE 1 - OPINION & ORDER judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart's recommendation. Under the preliminary injunction standard set forth in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008), Mr. Sanders is required to show: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See Nelson v. NASA, 568 F.3d 1028, 1030 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374 (2008)). Because Mr. Sanders did not bring a claim pertaining to the mail policies, a preliminary injunction is inappropriate. See Stewart v. INS, 762 F.2d 193, 198-99 (2d Cir. 1985) (finding that the court did not have jurisdiction over a plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction where the injunctive relief sought was not reasonably related to claims contained in the complaint). Therefore, I ADOPT the F&R (#91) as my own opinion, and plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#85) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 15th day of April, 2010. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court PAGE 2 - OPINION & ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.