Lal v. Felker et al
Filing
200
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2013 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 179 , 194 are ADOPTED in FULL; Defendant Baltzer, Barton, Callison, Carter, Cullison, Garrison, Miller, and Yeager's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff& #039;s 8th Amendment claims 166 is GRANTED; plaintiff's 174 motion construed as a motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED; this action proceeds on plaintiff's 1st Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Baltzer, Barton, Call ison, Carter, Cullison, Garrison, Miller, and Yeager, and on plaintiff's 1st and 8th Amendment claims against defendant Flores; and plaintiff's 178 , 190 , 191 motion for default judgment against defendant Flores is DENIED without prejudice.(Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
AZHAR LAL,
No. 2:07-cv-2060-KJM-EFB P
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
FELKER, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On October 18, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21
were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On August 16, 2013,
23
additional findings and recommendations were also served on the parties. After an extension of
24
time, plaintiff has filed objections to the August 16 findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
25
26
this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the
27
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
28
analysis.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 18, 2012 and August 16, 2013, are
3
4
adopted in full;
2. Defendant Baltzer, Barton, Callison, Carter, Cullison, Garrison, Miller, and Yeager’s
5
motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims (ECF No. 166) is
6
granted;
7
8
9
3. Plaintiff’s September 19, 2012 motion (ECF 174) construed as a motion for
preliminary injunction is denied.
4. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against
10
defendants Baltzer, Barton, Callison, Carter, Cullison, Garrison, Miller, and Yeager, and on
11
plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Flores; and
12
13
14
15
5. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendant Flores (ECF Nos. 178, 190,
191) is denied without prejudice.
So ordered.
DATED: September 30, 2013.
16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?