Shepard v. Quillen
ORDER ADOPTING 69 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 02/01/2012. (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00809-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND INJUNCTIVE
T. QUILLEN, et al.,
Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At this juncture, this action is
proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed September 16, 2010, against Defendant T.
Quillen for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and J. Wise for retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 25, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and injunctive relief be denied. The
parties were given thirty days within which to file objections. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s
objections, filed January 31, 2012.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The findings and recommendations, filed January 25, 2012, is adopted in full; and
Plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and injunctive relief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 1, 2012
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?