Lamon v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 216

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/23/10 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 9/1/10 201 are ADOPTED in full; Defendants' MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 152 is decieded as follows: Granted as to Defendants Walker , Downing, Johnson, Moghaddas and Paizis in all respects. Granted as to the claim that defendants Ellis, Lorusso and Parks retaliated against Plaintiff. Denied as to the claim that defendants Ellis, Lorusso and Parks violated Plaintiff's Eight Amended rights. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

-KJM (PC) Lamon v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al

Doc. 216

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / 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 September 1, 2010, the magistrate judge filed 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 twenty-one days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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. 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BARRY LAMON, Plaintiff, vs. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ORDER No. CIV S-06-0156 GEB KJM P

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 in all respects; follows: full; and

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 1, 2010, are adopted in

2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (docket no. 152) is decided as

A. Granted as to defendants Walker, Downing, Johnson, Moghaddas and Paizis

B. Granted as to the claim that defendants Ellis, Lorusso and Parks retaliated against plaintiff; and C. Denied as to the claim that defendants Ellis, Lorusso and Parks violated plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights.
Dated: December 23, 2010

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2