-KJM (PC) Lamon v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2006cv00156 - Document 216 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/23/10 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 9/1/10 201 are ADOPTED in full; Defendants' MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 152 is decieded as follows: Granted as to Defendants Walker , Downing, Johnson, Moghaddas and Paizis in all respects. Granted as to the claim that defendants Ellis, Lorusso and Parks retaliated against Plaintiff. Denied as to the claim that defendants Ellis, Lorusso and Parks violated Plaintiff's Eight Amended rights. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
-KJM (PC) Lamon v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al Doc. 216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BARRY LAMON, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0156 GEB KJM P vs. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 19 On September 1, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 22 Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 1, 2010, are adopted in 3 full; and 4 5 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket no. 152) is decided as follows: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A. Granted as to defendants Walker, Downing, Johnson, Moghaddas and Paizis in all respects; B. Granted as to the claim that defendants Ellis, Lorusso and Parks retaliated against plaintiff; and C. Denied as to the claim that defendants Ellis, Lorusso and Parks violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. Dated: December 23, 2010 13 14 15 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2