Lear v. Corcoran State Prison

Full title: RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, Plaintiff, v. CORCORAN STATE PRISON, and YASSER…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 18, 2018

No. 1:17-cv-00071-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2018)

Opinion

No. 1:17-cv-00071-DAD-JDP

07-18-2018

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, Plaintiff, v. CORCORAN STATE PRISON, and YASSER MANSOUR, Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. Nos. 42, 43)

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 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 infirmary at his current institution of confinement so that he could receive his legal property and have access to the law library. (Doc. No. 42.) On April 11, 2018, the then-assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, construing plaintiff's motion as a request for injunctive relief and recommending that the motion be denied. (Doc. No. 43.)¹ The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. To date, plaintiff has filed no objections to the findings and recommendations, and the time in which to file objections has now passed.

1 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.) --------

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

For these reasons,

1. The findings and recommendations issued February 22, 2018 (Doc. No. 43) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 42), construed as a motion for injunctive relief, is denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18 , 2018

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE