Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-54/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

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

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint against 

Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza and Masiel for use of excessive force in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failure to protect in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda and Garcia for assault and 

battery in violation of state law.

On September 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on Defendants’ failure to file a timely opposition to Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel be denied. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

BASED ON DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO FILE A 

TIMELY OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(ECF Nos. 179, 184)

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 193 Filed 10/23/13 Page 1 of 2
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

contained notice that any objections must be filed within fourteen days after service. (ECF No. 184.) 

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 Court 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, issued on September 13, 2013, are adopted in full; 

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based upon Defendants’ failure to file a timely opposition to 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2013 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

0m8i788

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 193 Filed 10/23/13 Page 2 of 2