Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

James William Robinson v. Arnold Schwarzengger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 21, 2011

JAMES WILLIAM ROBINSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENGGER, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, REQUESTS FOR PRELIMINAR Y INJUNCTION, AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 32)

Plaintiff James William Robinson ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed in Superior Court of the State of California on December 11, 2008. (Doc. 1-2.) On February 20, 2009, Defendants removed the action to federal Court. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff filed requests for judicial notice on October 2, 19, December 14, 2009; January 15, February 18, March 2, April 22, July 1, 2, 9, 15; August 11, and September 23, 2010. (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 32.) On May 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 21.) On December 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to findings and recommendations on December 27, 2010 and a motion for a second extension of time on February 3, 2011. (ECF Nos. 36, 38.) The motions were granted and the time for Plaintiff to file his objections has passed and no objections were filed.

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed December 1, 2010, is adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction filed May 13, 2010,is DENIED; (ECF No. 21)

3. Plaintiff's request for sanctions filed October 2, 2009, is DENIED; (ECF No. 11) and 4. Plaintiff's requests for judicial notice filed October 2, 19, December 14, 2009; January 15, February 18, March 2, April 22, July 1, 2, 9, 15; August 11, and September 23, 2010, are DENIED. (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27,32.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110321

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.