(PC) Morgan v. CA Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.,, No. 2:2009cv02155 - Document 73 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 68 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 1/19/12: Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is denied 46 . Defendant's summary judgment motion is denied 56 . (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Morgan v. CA Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., Doc. 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TYRONE MORGAN, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 vs. JOHN W. HAVILAND, et al., Defendants. ORDER / 15 16 No. 2:09-cv-2155 WBS KJN P 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 December 9, 2011, 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 Defendants have 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 25 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 26 by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In their objections, defendants request an opportunity to file a second dispositive 2 motion. The time for filing dispositive motions is closed. (See Dkt. Nos. 26, 55.) A request to 3 file a second dispositive motion should be addressed to the magistrate judge. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 9, 2011 are adopted in full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 46) is denied; and 7 3. Defendant’s summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 56) is denied. 8 DATED: January 19, 2012 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.