Hebbe v. Pliler, et al

Filing 91

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. on 5/2/06 ORDERING the amended F&R's 83 filed 3/8/06 are ADOPTED IN FULL. Dfts' 3/17/05 motion for summary judgment 67 is DENIED. Dfts' 3/17/05 motion to dismiss is GRANTED. ***Civil Case Terminated. CASE CLOSED (Carlos, K)

(PC) Hebbe v. Pliler, et al

Doc. 91

Case 2:00-cv-00306-EFB

Document 91

Filed 05/02/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. CHERYL PLILER, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. On March 8, 2006, the magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On March 8, 2006, defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations On March 20, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the amended findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PAUL ERIC HEBBE, Plaintiff, 2:00-cv-0306-GEB-PAN (JFM)-P

ORDER

Case 2:00-cv-00306-EFB

Document 91

Filed 05/02/2006

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

file, the court finds the amended findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The amended findings and recommendations filed March 8, 2006, are adopted in full; 2. Defendants' March 17, 2005 motion for summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff's claim defendants Vance and Pliler subjected plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment from November 9, 1998 until March 8, 1999; and 3. Defendants' March 17, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted; plaintiff's claims that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated in the March to April 1999 and September to November 1999 lockdowns are dismissed without prejudice. Dated: May 2, 2006 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2