Robinson v. Adams, et al.

Filing 193

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motion For Sanctions Based On Defendants' Failure To File A Timely Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion To Compel (ECF Nos. 179 , 184 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/22/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

12
13
14

15

Plaintiff,
v.
D. G. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
BASED ON DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO FILE A
TIMELY OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
(ECF Nos. 179, 184)

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint against
Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza and Masiel for use of excessive force in violation
of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failure to protect in violation of the
Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda and Garcia for assault and
battery in violation of state law.
On September 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on Defendants’ failure to file a timely opposition to Plaintiff’s
motion to compel be denied. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and

27
28
1

1

contained notice that any objections must be filed within fourteen days after service. (ECF No. 184.)

2

No objections were filed.

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

4

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

5

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on September 13, 2013, are adopted in full;

8

and

9

2. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based upon Defendants’ failure to file a timely opposition to

10

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: October 22, 2013

16
17

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

0m8i788

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2