(PC) Lear v. Manasrah, No. 1:2017cv00071 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 43 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 42 Plaintiff's Motion, Construed as a Motion for Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/18/2018. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, 12 No. 1:17-cv-00071-DAD-JDP Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 CORCORAN STATE PRISON, and YASSER MANSOUR, 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. Nos. 42, 43) 17 18 Plaintiff Roderick William Lear is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 20, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that he be released from the 21 22 infirmary at his current institution of confinement so that he could receive his legal property and 23 have access to the law library. (Doc. No. 42.) On April 11, 2018, the then-assigned magistrate 24 judge issued findings and recommendations, construing plaintiff’s motion as a request for 25 injunctive relief and recommending that the motion be denied. (Doc. No. 43.)1 The findings and 26 27 28 Nonetheless, the magistrate judge did request that the litigation coordinator at plaintiff’s institution of confinement assist plaintiff to ensure he received adequate opportunities to access his legal materials and the law library. (Doc. No. 43 at 2.) 1 1 1 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 2 to be filed within fourteen days after service. To date, plaintiff has filed no objections to the 3 findings and recommendations, and the time in which to file objections has now passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 5 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 6 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 For these reasons, 8 1. 9 10 adopted in full; 2. 11 12 15 16 Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 42), construed as a motion for injunctive relief, is denied; and 3. 13 14 The findings and recommendations issued February 22, 2018 (Doc. No. 43) are This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 18, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2