Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01322/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01322-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAULTON J. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01322-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER DISREGARDING REQUEST FOR

HEARING TRANSCRIPT AND DENYING

REQUEST FOR COPY OF OBJECTIONS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 63)

Plaintiff Shaulton J. Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled

“Request For the De Novo and One Phone Copy of the Objection Motion filed by this

Appellant.” (Doc. 63.) Plaintiff requests that the Court provide Plaintiff with hearing transcripts

for the de novo review, and a photo copy of Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s findings and

recommendations.

Plaintiff misunderstands the statement “de novo review.” “De novo review” means that

the District Judge reviewed the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations and Plaintiff’s

objections without giving any deference to the undersigned’s findings. There was no hearing that

occurred. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for hearing transcripts is DISREGARDED.

Plaintiff is also not entitled to copies of filings at the Court’s expense, even if Plaintiff is

proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was notified of this requirement in the Court’s first

informational order, filed November 30, 2007. (Doc. 12, First Informational Order.) If Plaintiff

1

Case 1:07-cv-01322-AWI-DLB Document 64 Filed 05/20/10 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

submits funds to pay for the copying, the Court will order a copy to be made. Copies of

documents from the court file may be obtained at the cost of fifty cents per page. (First

Informational Order ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s objections are 42 pages long.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the objections is DENIED, without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 19, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

77e0d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01322-AWI-DLB Document 64 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2