Lamon v. Amrheign et al

Filing 84

ORDER ADOPTING 80 Findings and Recommendations, and DENYING 71 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/5/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
B. AMRHEIGN et al.,

15

No. 1:12-cv-00296-DAD-BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 71, 72, 80)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

19
20

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

21

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 25, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

22
23

recommending defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. (Doc. No. 80.)1 The

24

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections

25
The magistrate judge also found that defendants’ request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 72) in
support of the motion for judgment on the pleadings involved actions taken in litigation which
were undisputed, and that those prior court proceedings were a proper subject of judicial notice.
(See Doc. No. 80 at 5.) Accordingly, the court will take judicial notice of those court proceedings
in deciding this motion.
1
1

26
27
28

1

thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 80 at 8.) That deadline has passed, and

2

no objections were filed.

3

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

4

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

5

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

6

Accordingly:

7

1. The July 25, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 80) are adopted in full;

8

2. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 71) is denied; and

9

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

10
11
12

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 5, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2