-SMS (PC) Lamon v. Adams et al, No. 1:2009cv00205 - Document 102 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Vacating 84 Findings and Recommendations in Part, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 4/8/11. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-SMS (PC) Lamon v. Adams et al Doc. 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SMS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART v. (Doc. 84) 12 13 DERRAL ADAMS, et al., Defendants. / 14 15 16 17 Barry Louis Lamon, (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. On February 1, 2011, a findings and recommendation issued regarding Defendants’ 18 motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and allowing 19 Plaintiff to submit a supplemental opposition, if any, within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 84.) On 20 February 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed his supplemental opposition. (Docs. 87, 88.) On March 1, 21 2011, Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendation. (Doc. 89.) On March 9, 22 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ objections, a request for judicial notice, and a 23 motion to file an addendum to his declaration in support of his supplemental opposition. (Docs. 24 91-93.) On March 18, 2011, Defendants were ordered to file a status report on receipt of 25 Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ requests for admissions with which they complied on March 26 22, 2011. (Docs. 94, 95.) On March 23, 2011, Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii reassigned the 27 Magistrate Judge on this case. (Doc. 96.) 28 In light of the Magistrate Judge reassignment and so as to consider all of the evidence and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 arguments submitted regarding Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 46) the 2 findings and recommendation, issued February 1, 2011 (Doc. 84), is hereby VACATED IN 3 PART: (1) the portion of that findings and recommendations which addressed Defendants’ 4 motion for summary judgment is VACATED; and (2) the portions of the findings and 5 recommendation addressing Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief and 6 ordering/allowing Plaintiff to submit a supplemental opposition1 to Defendants’ motion for 7 summary judgment remain valid and intact. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed 8 September 7, 2010 (Doc. 46) is once again deemed submitted. See Local Rule 230(l) 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: icido3 April 8, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff has already filed his supplemental opposition in compliance with the findings and recommendation. Nothing in this order is intended, nor should it be construed in any way, to allow Plaintiff to file any additional documents in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 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.
