(PC) Robinson v. Schwarzenegger et al, No. 1:2009cv00349 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/21/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Robinson v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAMES WILLIAM ROBINSON, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00349-OWW-GBC PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, REQUESTS FOR P R E LIM IN A R Y INJ UNC T IO N , A N D REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENGGER, et al., 13 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 32) 14 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff James William Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se 18 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed in Superior Court of the 19 State of California on December 11, 2008. (Doc. 1-2.) On February 20, 2009, Defendants removed 20 the action to federal Court. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 Plaintiff filed requests for judicial notice on October 2, 19, December 14, 2009; January 15, 23 February 18, March 2, April 22, July 1, 2, 9, 15; August 11, and September 23, 2010. (ECF Nos. 11, 24 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 32.) On May 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for 25 preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 21.) On December 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 26 recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties 27 that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF 28 No. 34.) Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to findings and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 recommendations on December 27, 2010 and a motion for a second extension of time on February 2 3, 2011. (ECF Nos. 36, 38.) The motions were granted and the time for Plaintiff to file his objections 3 has passed and no objections were filed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de 5 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned finds the findings 6 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations, filed December 1, 2010, is adopted in full; 9 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction filed May 13, 2010,is DENIED; (ECF 10 No. 21) 11 3. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions filed October 2, 2009, is DENIED; (ECF No. 11) and 12 4. Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice filed October 2, 19, December 14, 2009; January 13 15, February 18, March 2, April 22, July 1, 2, 9, 15; August 11, and September 23, 14 2010, are DENIED. (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 15 32.) 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: March 21, 2011 emm0d6 18 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
