(PC) Lal v. Felker et al, No. 2:2007cv02060 - Document 200 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2013 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 179 , 194 are ADOPTED in FULL; Defendant Baltzer, Barton, Callison, Carter, Cullison, Garrison, Miller, and Yeager's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff& #039;s 8th Amendment claims 166 is GRANTED; plaintiff's 174 motion construed as a motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED; this action proceeds on plaintiff's 1st Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Baltzer, Barton, Call ison, Carter, Cullison, Garrison, Miller, and Yeager, and on plaintiff's 1st and 8th Amendment claims against defendant Flores; and plaintiff's 178 , 190 , 191 motion for default judgment against defendant Flores is DENIED without prejudice.(Reader, L)
Download PDF
(PC) Lal v. Felker et al Doc. 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AZHAR LAL, No. 2:07-cv-2060-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 FELKER, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 18, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On August 16, 2013, 23 additional findings and recommendations were also served on the parties. After an extension of 24 time, plaintiff has filed objections to the August 16 findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 25 26 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the 27 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 18, 2012 and August 16, 2013, are 3 4 adopted in full; 2. Defendant Baltzer, Barton, Callison, Carter, Cullison, Garrison, Miller, and Yeager’s 5 motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims (ECF No. 166) is 6 granted; 7 8 9 3. Plaintiff’s September 19, 2012 motion (ECF 174) construed as a motion for preliminary injunction is denied. 4. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against 10 defendants Baltzer, Barton, Callison, Carter, Cullison, Garrison, Miller, and Yeager, and on 11 plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Flores; and 12 13 14 15 5. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendant Flores (ECF Nos. 178, 190, 191) is denied without prejudice. So ordered. DATED: September 30, 2013. 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2