(PC) Jackson v. Pletcher et al, No. 2:2011cv01157 - Document 254 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/3/2014 ADOPTING IN FULL 249 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING Defendant M. Osman's 225 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Michel, G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Jackson v. Pletcher et al Doc. 254 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND D. JACKSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2: 11-cv-1157 JAM KJN P v. ORDER STEVEN PLETCHER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 4, 2014, 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 and defendant has filed a response to plaintiff’s 24 objections. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 2 analysis.1 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2014 are adopted in full; and 5 2. Defendant Osman’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 225) is granted. 6 DATED: November 3, 2014 7 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 In his objections, plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that the magistrate judge erred in excluding the declaration of plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Lopchinsky. Pls. Objs. at 2-3. This assertion is incorrect. Dr. Lopchinsky’s declaration has not been excluded. It has been fully considered by the magistrate judge, see Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 249) at 11-14, and by this court. 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.
