(PC) Baker v. Perez et al, No. 2:2009cv02757 - Document 148 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 140 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/30/13: Motions for Reconsideration 145 and 147 are DENIED. 122 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Baker v. Perez et al Doc. 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BAKER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:09-cv-2757 MCE KJN P v. ORDER PEREZ, et al., 15 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. On August 8, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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 304, this 24 25 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 145) of the August 8, 2013 2 order (ECF No. 140) denying his motion for an extension of time to obtain newly discovered 3 evidence (ECF No. 124). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 147) of 4 the order (ECF No. 144) denying his motion to compel (ECF No. 143). 5 Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless 6 “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it 7 does not appear that the magistrate judge’s rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 145 and 147) are DENIED; 10 2. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2013, are ADOPTED in full; and 11 3. Defendants’ summary judgment motion (ECF No. 122) is DENIED as to plaintiff’s 12 Eighth Amendment and state law claims against defendant Medina based on the discontinuation 13 of plaintiff’s Tramadol prescription on November 10, 2008; defendants’ motion is GRANTED in 14 all other respects. 15 Dated: October 30, 2013 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.