(HC) Ruvalcaba v. Cash, No. 1:2011cv01142 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 21 Motion for court order instructing the Prison Law Library to give access to Lexus and Westlaw Cases signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/14/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(HC) Ruvalcaba v. Cash Doc. 31 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 OMAR ALEX RUVALCABA, 1:11-CV-1142 AWI JLT (HC) 4 Petitioner, 5 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v. [Doc. Nos. 21, 30] 7 BRENDA M. CASH, Warden, 8 Respondent. 9 / 10 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 12 On July 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) that 13 recommended that Petitioner’s motion for an order requiring the prison law library to provide access 14 Lexis and Westlaw cases (Doc. No. 21) be DENIED. The F&R was served on all parties and 15 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty (20) days of the date of service of 16 the order. No objections or responses of any kind have been filed. 17 OnIn accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has reviewed the case. 18 Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the objections, the Court concludes 19 that the Magistrate Judge’s F&R is supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need 20 to make modifications. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued July 19, 2012 (Doc. No. 30) is ADOPTED IN 23 FULL; and 24 2. Petitioner’s motion for an order requiring the prison law library to provide access Lexis and 25 Westlaw cases (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED. 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 September 14, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com

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.