Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01894/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01894-9/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

IRVIN VAN BUREN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. WADDLE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION REQUESTING COURT ORDER 

FOR ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY

(Doc. Nos. 56, 57)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The case is 

proceeding on plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Neibert, Ronquillo, 

and Walinga for the alleged excessive use of force under the Eighth Amendment, and against 

defendant Waddle for excessive use of force and failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment. 

(Doc. No. 7.)

On August 30, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending the denial of plaintiff’s motion for an order directing that he receive access to the 

law library at his institution of confinement, which was construed as a motion seeking injunctive 

relief. (Doc. Nos. 56, 57.) The magistrate judge granted plaintiff fourteen days to file any 

Case 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS Document 68 Filed 11/03/16 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

objections to this recommendation. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time in which 

to do so has passed.

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

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 

file, the undersigned finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis. 

Accordingly:

1. The undersigned adopts in full the findings and recommendations filed on August 30, 

2016 (Doc. No. 57); and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing that he be provided the requested access to the 

law library (Doc. No. 56) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS Document 68 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 2