Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-60/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 and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the 

complaint against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez 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. The events alleged in Plaintiff’s 

complaint occurred at California State Prison – Corcoran in 2007.

On November 6, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Plaintiff’s motion for an order regarding the production of his property and repair of his typewriter be 

denied. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 

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 AND/OR AGENTS 

ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF OBSTRUCTING 

ABILITY TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE

(ECF NO. 191, 199)

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 202 Filed 12/04/13 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

objections must be filed within fourteen days after service. (ECF No. 199.) More than fourteen days

have passed and no objections have been 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 November 6, 2013, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order regarding the production of his property and repair of his 

typewriter is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2013 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 202 Filed 12/04/13 Page 2 of 2