-GBC (PC) Buckley v. Alameida, et al, No. 1:2004cv05688 - Document 150 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Striking Findings and Recommendations filed on December 14, 2011 149 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 12/20/11. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-GBC (PC) Buckley v. Alameida, et al Doc. 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTONIO C. BUCKLEY, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05688-LJO-GBC PC ORDER STRIKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FILED ON DECEMBER 14, 2011 v. ALAMEIDA, et al., 13 (Doc. 149) Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (the Religious Land Use 18 and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”)). On December 14, 2011, the Court filed findings 19 and recommendations in which the Court found that there remained a disputed issue of material fact 20 regarding whether Defendants Reed, Mack, and Traynham placed Plaintiff in a cell that was covered 21 in feces. Doc. 149 at 39. However, the conclusion and order omitted that finding. Doc. 149 at 45. 22 Pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 the Court will strike its original 23 findings and recommendation and refile the corrected version so as to avoid confusion. 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 28 1 Rule 60(a) states: “The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Based on the forgoing, the Court’s findings and recommendations filed December 14, 2011, is HEREBY STRICKEN to be replaced with the amended findings and recommendations. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: 0jh02o December 20, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
