(PC) Van Buren v. Waddle et al, No. 1:2014cv01894 - Document 68 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: 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)

Download PDF
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

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.