“[D]eterminations of law 1 | by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 2 | ....”
How later courts described this case
- “[D]eterminations of law 1 | by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 2 | ....”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LOUIS PEETS, No. 2:18-CV-2469-KJM-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
18 § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by the Eastern
19 District of California local rules.
20 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order for access to a prison law library. ECF
21 No. 36. On February 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which
22 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within
23 the time specified therein. ECF No. 39. The Magistrate Judge construed the motion as a motion
24 for injunctive relief and recommended denying it. Id. No objections to the findings and
25 recommendations have been filed.
26 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,
27 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed
28 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law
1 | by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court
2 | ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
3 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 39) filed February 16, 2021, are
6 adopted in full;
7 2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 36) is DENIED; and
8 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial
9 || proceedings.
10 | DATED: May 13, 2021.
1]
12 ee
B CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28