(PC) Gil v. Yates et al, No. 1:2009cv00552 - Document 44 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 41 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In Full; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 33 Motion for access to the law library, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/14/2011. (Martin, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Gil v. Yates et al Doc. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 FRANCISCO GIL, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00552-AWI-DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO LAW LIBRARY AS MOOT v. JAMES A. YATES, et al., (Documents #33 & #41) 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Francisco Gil (“Plaintiff”) is a former California state prisoner. Plaintiff is 17 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant Amadi. 19 On April 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for access to the law library. Doc. 33. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302. 22 On January 6, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which 23 was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings 24 and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff did not file a timely 25 Objection to the Findings and Recommendations. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 28 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 6, 2011, is adopted in full; and 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion for access to the law library, filed April 9, 2010, is denied as 4 moot. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 March 14, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 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.