(PC) Robinson v. Adams, et al., No. 1:2008cv01380 - Document 202 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 199 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's 191 Motion for Sanctions Based on Defendants and/or Agents Acting on their behalf Obstructing Ability to Prosecute this Case signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/3/2013. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE H. ROBINSON, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. D. G. ADAMS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BASED ON DEFENDANTS AND/OR AGENTS ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF OBSTRUCTING ABILITY TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE (ECF NO. 191, 199) Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the 21 complaint against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez and Masiel for use 22 of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for 23 failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, 24 Miranda and Garcia for assault and battery in violation of state law. The events alleged in Plaintiff’s 25 complaint occurred at California State Prison – Corcoran in 2007. 26 On November 6, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 27 Plaintiff’s motion for an order regarding the production of his property and repair of his typewriter be 28 denied. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 1 1 objections must be filed within fourteen days after service. (ECF No. 199.) More than fourteen days 2 have passed and no objections have been filed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 4 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 5 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on November 6, 2013, are adopted in full; and 9 2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order regarding the production of his property and repair of his 10 typewriter is DENIED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: December 3, 2013 14 SENIOR 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.
