(PC) Lamon v.Lytle, et al, No. 2:2003cv00423 - Document 207 (E.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 2/4/08 ORDERING that the FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS filed 12/19/07 192 and 193 are both ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's MOTIONS for injunctive Relief 139 , 140 , 141 , 146 , 148 , 149 , [152 ] and 177 are DENIED. Defendants' MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings 156 is contstrued as a MOTION to Dismiss and, so construed, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's religious diet claim is dismissed with prejudice; and Defendants Pliler and Hawthorne are DISMISSED as defendants to this action. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Lamon v.Lytle, et al Doc. 207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY LAMON, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. CIV S-03-0423-FCD-CMK-P vs. ORDER C.K. PLILER, et al., Defendants. 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On December 19, 2007, the magistrate judge filed separate findings and 21 recommendations (Docs. 192 and 193) herein which were served on the parties and which 22 contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 23 20 days. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.1 24 1 25 26 Plaintiff has filed documents entitled “Plaintiff’s Local Rule 78-230(m) Application for Reconsideration of the findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge: (Docs. 198, 199, 201, and 202), which the court construes as plaintiff’s objections. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file objections (Doc. 200) is moot. 1 Dockets.Justia.com In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 1 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 3 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. 7 The findings and recommendations filed December 19, 2007 (Docs. 192 and 193), are both adopted in full; 8 2. 9 149, 152, and 177) are denied; 10 3. 11 Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 139, 140, 141, 146, 148, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 156) is construed as a motion to dismiss and, so construed, is granted; 12 4. Plaintiff’s religious diet claim is dismissed with prejudice; and 13 5. Defendants Pliler and Hawthorne are dismissed as defendants to this 14 action. 15 DATED: February 4, 2008. 16 17 18 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
