Bryant v. Gallagher et al

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING 81 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Court Order and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of the Discovery as a Sanction signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/20/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00446-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
AN EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY
DEADLINE AS A SANCTION

v.
GALLAGHER, et al.,
Defendants.

(ECF Nos. 79, 80, 81)
14
/
15
16

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

18

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On October 31, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

20

which was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the

21

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 81.) The Court has

22

considered Plaintiff’s Objection, filed November 19, 2012. (ECF No. 85.)

23

In his Objection, Plaintiff states that he sincerely believed that he had standing to request a

24

court order even though he had read the two most recent orders denying him law library access prior

25

to bringing the current motion. Plaintiff acknowledges that he received and read the prior orders

26

informing him that he did not have standing to bring the current Motion for a Court Order. The

27

Court fails to find persuasive Plaintiff’s assertion that he believed he now had standing to bring the

28

motion when it is based upon the same facts that he has alleged in each of his prior motions, and the
1

1

orders of the court have been clear in each instance that he did not have standing. (See ECF Nos.

2

16, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30, 31, 37, 44, 58, 62.)

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 31, 2012, is adopted in full;

8

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Order for Law Library Access, filed October 26, 2012,

9

is DENIED; and

10

3.

11

Deadline, filed October 26, 2012, is DENIED.

12
13

As a sanction, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Order Extending the Discovery

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
b9ed48

November 20, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2