-JLT (PC) Trotter v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:2010cv01971 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 28 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Law Library Access signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/15/2011. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
-JLT (PC) Trotter v. Schwarzenegger Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAMES TROTTER, 10 11 Case No. 1:10-cv-01971 LJO JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. (Doc. 28) 12 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ________________________________/ 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 16 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 17 and Local Rule 302. 18 On August 25, 2011, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 19 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for law library access be denied. (Doc. 28.) The assigned 20 Magistrate Judge explained that T. Peterson, the individual allegedly denying Plaintiff law library 21 access, is not before the Court in this case and therefore the Court has no power to issue injunctive 22 relief from that individual. (Id. at 3.) 23 The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed 24 within fourteen days of service. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 25 findings and recommendations.1 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time on September 13, 2011, presumably to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 29.) However, the motion was denied because Plaintiff failed to show good cause for an extension of time. (Doc. 30.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Court has conducted a de novo review of this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2 636(b)(1)(C). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and 3 recommendations are supported by the record and the proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s January 3, 2011 motion for law 5 library access (Doc. 21) is DENIED. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dated: 66h44d 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. September 15, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.