(PC) Lamon v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2006cv00156 - Document 149 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/15/09 ORDERING the magistrate judge's order of 7/1/09, is Affirmed; the findings and recommendations filed 7/1/09, are Adopted in Full; and Plaintiff's 1/20/09 motion for a preliminary injunction 116 is Denied. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PC) Lamon v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al Doc. 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 2:06-cv-0156-GEB-KJM-P vs. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER / 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 20 On July 1, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff also takes issue with many of the 24 magistrate judge’s rulings on discovery matters, included with the findings and recommendations 25 on plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. Although challenges to the discovery ruling are more 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 properly brought in a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule No. 72-303, the court will 2 consider them. 3 In addition, plaintiff objects to a number of the magistrate judge’s prior rulings 4 and to the management of this case in general. To the extent that plaintiff complains about the 5 screening order, his objection is untimely. Local Rule 72-303(b). 6 Pursuant to Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld 7 unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that 8 it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 10 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 11 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 12 proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Upon reconsideration, the magistrate judge’s order of July 1, 2009, is affirmed; 15 2. The findings and recommendations filed July 1, 2009, are adopted in full; and 16 3. Plaintiff’s January 20, 2009 motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket. 17 18 No. 116) is denied. Dated: September 15, 2009 19 20 21 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 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.