(PC) Quezada v. Gricewich et al, No. 1:2006cv01088 - Document 66 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 59 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and DENYING 55 and 57 Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 11/30/2010. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
(PC) Quezada v. Gricewich et al Doc. 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) B. GRICEWICH, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ____________________________________) ALVARO QUEZADA, 12 13 14 15 16 17 CASE NO.: 1:06-CV-01088-OWW-GBC (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 55, 57, 59) 18 19 Plaintiff Alvaro Quezada, (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 21 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On August 11, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 23 which was served on the Plaintiff and which contained notice to the Plaintiff that any objections to 24 the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The Plaintiff filed an 25 objection to the Findings and Recommendations on August 27, 2010. In his objection, Plaintiff 26 asserts that the Magistrate Judge’s requirement that Plaintiff obtain leave from the Court prior to 27 filing an opposition that is greater than 50 pages in length (including exhibits) interferes with 28 Plaintiff’s access to the courts and that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A specific description of each document and 2 justification for copying has not been provided, despite opportunity to do so. 3 The Plaintiff’s objection has not presented facts or law which would demonstrate that the 4 Findings and Recommendations should not be adopted. In accordance with the provisions of 28 5 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully 6 reviewed the entire file and Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the Findings and 7 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 11, 2010, is adopted in full. 10 2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Emm0d6Dated: 12 November 30, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2