(PC) Bryant v. Gallagher et al, No. 1:2011cv00446 - Document 87 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Bryant v. Gallagher et al Doc. 87 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
