Williams v. Professional Courier and Newspaper Distribution et al

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROFESSIONAL COURIER AND
NEWSPAPER DISTRIBUTION, d/b/a
Brandt Brothers, et. al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00973-KES-HBK
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Docs. 3, 8
Plaintiff Prince Paul Raymond Williams is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil action. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 12, 2025, plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining
order and order to show cause regarding preliminary injunction. Doc. 3. On September 15, 2025,
the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to deny plaintiff’s ex parte
application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause regarding preliminary
injunction. Doc. 8. Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s motion failed to
comply with the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local
Rule 231(c); that plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims; and
the plaintiff failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief were not
granted. Id. at 4–6. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and notified him
that objections were due in 14 days. Id. at 6. Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the time to
Case 1:25-cv-00973-KES-HBK Document 10 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 2

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
do so has passed. See docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de
novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and
recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 15, 2025, Doc. 8, are
adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show
cause regarding preliminary injunction, Doc. 3, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00973-KES-HBK Document 10 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 2