(PC) Peets v. Brown ( 2021 )

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