(PC) Lancaster v. Carey, et al, No. 2:2008cv00051 - Document 55 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 50 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/19/11: Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to defendant Carey and denied as to defendants Herrera and Fry 38 . (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Lancaster v. Carey, et al Doc. 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID GENE LANCASTER, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0051 LKK GGH P vs. TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 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 Rule 302. 19 On June 6, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations.1 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 1 25 26 The magistrate judge, in noting a different resolution in Morris v. Hickison, CIV-S-062936 LKK KJN P, regarding defendants Herrera and Fry, correctly found that the instant plaintiff’s claim as to these defendants cannot be resolved by a summary judgment motion. See Findings and Recommendations, pp. 20-21, n 23. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 2 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 3 proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 6, 2011 are adopted in full; and 6 2. Defendants’ November 2, 2010 motion for summary judgment 7 (Docket No. 38) is granted as to defendant Carey and denied as to defendants Herrera and Fry. 8 DATED: July 19, 2011. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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.