Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06329/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06329-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD WALKER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et )

al., )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:04-cv-6329-REC-SMS 

ORDER ADOPTING THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL,

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AS 

MOOT.

(Docs. 36, 38 & 40)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner confined in Centinela State

Prison who is proceeding pro se with an action concerning alleged

civil right violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On January 25, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court

order requiring that he be given access to the court and to the

law library, and for an extension of time to file a reply to

Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On February 7, 2006, Magistrate Judge Snyder issued Findings and

Recommendations interpreting the motion as a request for

injunctive relief and a request for an extension of time. The

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s

motion for injunctive relief and deny Plaintiff’s request for an

extension of time as moot. The Findings and Recommendations

contained notice to the parties that any objections were to be

filed within thirty (30) days. 

On February 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Court

Order for Access to Law Library (the “Motion”). Plaintiff

contends that the access he currently has to the library is

insufficient for the legal research this case requires. The

Court deems the Motion to be an objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations of February 7, 2006. 

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 Court finds

the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record

and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 7, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is

DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is DENIED as

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2