(PC) Peets v. Brown

Opinion

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