Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01336/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01336-20/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1336 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On November 25, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 102. Neither 

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. However, plaintiff has filed 

objections to the order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 105. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-01336-KJM-AC Document 114 Filed 01/15/20 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 

With respect to the objections to the denial of counsel, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

72(a) permits a party to object to non-dispositive orders issued by magistrate judges and requires 

that the district judge “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is 

contrary to law.” The November 26, 2019 order of the magistrate judge is not clearly erroneous 

or contrary to law and the objections will be overruled and the order affirmed. 

 Plaintiff has also filed objections to the magistrate judge’s December 19, 2019 order 

denying his motion for the court to order the law library to provide him with physical access and 

timely copies. ECF No. 107. The order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the 

objections will be overruled and the order affirmed. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 25, 2019 (ECF No. 102), are 

adopted in full. 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 90) 

are denied. 

3. Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s November 26, 2019 order denying 

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 105) are overruled and the order is affirmed. 

4. Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s December 19, 2019 order denying his 

request for a court order (ECF No. 107) are overruled and the order is affirmed. 

5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 

proceedings. 

DATED: January 14, 2020. 

Case 2:16-cv-01336-KJM-AC Document 114 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 2