(PC) Lamon v. Adams et al, No. 1:2007cv01390 - Document 63 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 58 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 53 , 54 Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/24/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Lamon v. Adams et al Doc. 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC (PC) 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., (Docs. 53, 54, 58) Defendants. ______________________________________/ 17 Barry Louis Lamon (“Plaintiff’) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on September 21, 2007, 19 and is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on April 8, 2009. (Docs. 1, 21, 20 30.). This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for claims stemming from 21 events at California State Prison in Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”) for First Amendment retaliation, 22 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Equal 23 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Docs. 21, 30.). The matter was referred to a 24 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 On August 20, 2010, and on August 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed duplicative motions seeking an 26 order of protection. (Docs. 53, 54). On January 10, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 27 Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice that any 28 objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Neither party 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 has submitted objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 3 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 4 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 10, 2011, is adopted in full; and 7 2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed August 20, 2010, and 8 9 10 August 25, 2010, are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 February 24, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
