(PC) Baldwin v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 2:2009cv00711 - Document 90 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/27/2012 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 88 are ADOPTED except for page 5, lines 11-22, and page 9, lines 14-20; 2. Plaintiff's 80 defective cross- motion for summary judgment, is DENIED as wholly d eficient; Defendants' motion for summary judgment # 77 , is DENED in PART and GRANTED in PART; DENIED as to defendants Fannon, Gray and Barton and GRANTED as to defendants McDonald and Gower; Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are DIS MISSED as MOOT; specifically with respect to any claim for lost time credits, that claim is DISMISSED as barred in an action under 42:1983; and this action will now proceed against defendants Fannon, Gray and Barton on plaintiff's claims for money damages only.(Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Baldwin v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al Doc. 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY V. BALDWIN, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 No. CVI S-09-0711 WBS GGH P CA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER / 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 16, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 20 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the 2 proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 16, 2012, are adopted except 5 6 7 8 9 10 for page 5, lines 11-22, and page 9, lines 14-20; 2. Plaintiff’s defective cross- motion for summary judgment, filed on March 19, 2012 (Docket No. 80), is denied as wholly deficient; 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on February 29, 2012 (Docket No. 77), is denied in part and granted in part: DENIED as to defendants Fannon, Gray and Barton and GRANTED as to defendants McDonald and Gower; 11 4. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are dismissed as moot; specifically with 12 respect to any claim for lost time credits, that claim is dismissed as barred in an action under 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983; and 14 5. This action will now proceed against defendants Fannon, Gray and Barton on 15 plaintiff’s claims for money damages only. 16 DATED: September 27, 2012. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
