Lear v. Manasrah

Filing 47

ORDER ADOPTING 43 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 42 Plaintiff's Motion, Construed as a Motion for Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/18/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

12

No. 1:17-cv-00071-DAD-JDP

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CORCORAN STATE PRISON, and
YASSER MANSOUR,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
(Doc. Nos. 42, 43)

17
18

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

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

20

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 20, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that he be released from the

21
22

infirmary at his current institution of confinement so that he could receive his legal property and

23

have access to the law library. (Doc. No. 42.) On April 11, 2018, the then-assigned magistrate

24

judge issued findings and recommendations, construing plaintiff’s motion as a request for

25

injunctive relief and recommending that the motion be denied. (Doc. No. 43.)1 The findings and

26
27
28

Nonetheless, the magistrate judge did request that the litigation coordinator at plaintiff’s
institution of confinement assist plaintiff to ensure he received adequate opportunities to access
his legal materials and the law library. (Doc. No. 43 at 2.)
1
1

1

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were

2

to be filed within fourteen days after service. To date, plaintiff has filed no objections to the

3

findings and recommendations, and the time in which to file objections has now passed.

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

5

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

6

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

7

For these reasons,

8

1.

9
10

adopted in full;
2.

11
12

15
16

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 42), construed as a motion for injunctive relief, is
denied; and

3.

13
14

The findings and recommendations issued February 22, 2018 (Doc. No. 43) are

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 18, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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