Shepard v. Quillen

Filing 86

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 84 and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 73 and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 84 ; ORDER Striking Plaintiff's Surreply 82 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/12/12. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LAMONT SHEPARD,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00809-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF. Nos. 73,
74, 84, 85)

v.
T. QUILLEN, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY
(ECF No. 82)

15
/
16
17

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 3, 2012, and Defendants filed

21

a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 8, 2012.1 On May 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge

22

filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained

23

notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

24

within thirty days. On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Objection which has been considered by the

25

Court.

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment by the
defendants in the Motion for Summary Judgment. W oods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 W L 2626912,
at *5 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988).

1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

3

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 30, 2012, is adopted in full;

6

2.

Plaintiff’s Surreply, filed March 6, 2012 is STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD;

7

3

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 3, 2012, is DENIED;

8

4.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 8, 2012, is GRANTED

9

IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

10

a.

Defendant Quillen’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;

11

b.

Defendant Wise’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and

12

5.

This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
b9ed48

July 12, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2