-CMK (PC) Pamer v. Schwarzenegger et al, No. 2:2007cv01902 - Document 101 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/29/2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87 are ADOPTED in FULL; dfts' 70 motion to dismiss is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; dfts Anderson, Andreason, Aronsen, Bick, Cox, Cry, Donahue, Fe lker, Geoffrey, Grannis, James, Johnson, Khoury, Warwick, Lamberton, McDonald, Miller, Moreno, O'Ran, R. Perez, T. Perez, Prebula, Roche, Schwartz, Schwarzenegger, Surges, Sweigert, Tilton, and Weaver are DISMISSED from this action; this case wi ll proceed against dfts Cobb, Gordon and Hill ONLY, on pltf's claims for violation of his 8th Amendment rights against dft Cobb relating to access to bathroom facilities, and his failure to protect claims against dfts Gordon and Hill which were not challenged in the motion; and dfts Cobb, Gordon and Hill are directed to file an answer to the remaining claims in the 2nd amended complaint 19 within 30 days of the date of this order.(Reader, L)

Download PDF
-CMK (PC) Pamer v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE PAMER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 2:07-cv-1902-MCE-CMK-P v. ORDER 14 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern 19 District of California local rules. 20 On December 23, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 21 No. 87) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may 22 file objections within a specified time. No timely objections to the findings and 23 recommendations have been filed, despite additional time being granted to do so. 24 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 23, 2010, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 70) is granted in part and denied in part, 4 5 as set forth in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations; 3. Defendants Anderson, Andreason, Aronsen, Bick, Cox, Cry, Donahue, Felker, 6 Geoffrey, Grannis, James, Johnson, Khoury, Warwick, Lamberton, McDonald, Miller, Moreno, 7 O’Ran, R. Perez, T. Perez, Prebula, Roche, Schwartz, Schwarzenegger, Surges, Sweigert, Tilton, 8 and Weaver are dismissed from this action; 9 4. This case will proceed against defendants Cobb, Gordon and Hill only, on 10 plaintiff’s claims for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against defendant Cobb relating 11 to access to bathroom facilities, and his failure to protect claims against defendants Gordon and 12 Hill which were not challenged in the motion; and 13 14 15 5. Defendants Cobb, Gordon and Hill are directed to file an answer to the remaining claims in the second amended complaint (ECF No. 19) within 30 days of the date of this order. Dated: March 29, 2011 16 17 18 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, 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.