(PC) Lamon v. Adams et al, No. 1:2009cv00205 - Document 299 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 291 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to DENY Plaintiff's 287 Motion for Access to Case Files and Legal Materials for Lack of Jurisdiction signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/2/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Case No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-JLT (PC) 10 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO CASE FILES AND LEGAL MATERIALS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Defendants. (Docs. 287, 291) 12 v. 13 ADAMS, et al., 14 15 16 Plaintiff, Barry Louis Lamon, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On October 6, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which 20 was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that Objections to the Findings 21 and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Neither side filed any objections. 22 Local Rule 304(b), (d). 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 24 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 25 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 27 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on October 6, 2015 (Doc. 291), is adopted in full; and 1 1 2. 2 Plaintiff’s motion, filed on September 21, 2015 (Doc. 287) requesting access to case files and legal materials, is denied for lack of jurisdiction. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill December 2, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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.