Van Buren v. Waddle et al
Filing
68
ORDER ADOPTING 57 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 56 MOTION REQUESTING COURT ORDER FOR ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/2/2016. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
IRVIN VAN BUREN,
12
13
14
No. 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS
Plaintiff,
v.
C. WADDLE, et al.,
15
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION REQUESTING COURT ORDER
FOR ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 56, 57)
16
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
19
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
20
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The case is
21
proceeding on plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Neibert, Ronquillo,
22
and Walinga for the alleged excessive use of force under the Eighth Amendment, and against
23
defendant Waddle for excessive use of force and failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment.
24
(Doc. No. 7.)
25
On August 30, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
26
recommending the denial of plaintiff’s motion for an order directing that he receive access to the
27
law library at his institution of confinement, which was construed as a motion seeking injunctive
28
relief. (Doc. Nos. 56, 57.) The magistrate judge granted plaintiff fourteen days to file any
1
1
objections to this recommendation. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time in which
2
to do so has passed.
3
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the
4
undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
5
file, the undersigned finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
6
by proper analysis.
7
Accordingly:
8
1. The undersigned adopts in full the findings and recommendations filed on August 30,
9
10
11
2016 (Doc. No. 57); and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing that he be provided the requested access to the
law library (Doc. No. 56) is denied.
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 2, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?