Baker v. Perez et al
Filing
148
ORDER adopting 140 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/30/13: Motions for Reconsideration 145 and 147 are DENIED. 122 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL BAKER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:09-cv-2757 MCE KJN P
v.
ORDER
PEREZ, et al.,
15
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.
On August 8, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
20
21
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
22
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed
23
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
24
25
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
26
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
27
analysis.
28
////
1
1
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 145) of the August 8, 2013
2
order (ECF No. 140) denying his motion for an extension of time to obtain newly discovered
3
evidence (ECF No. 124). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 147) of
4
the order (ECF No. 144) denying his motion to compel (ECF No. 143).
5
Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless
6
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it
7
does not appear that the magistrate judge’s rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1. Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 145 and 147) are DENIED;
10
2. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2013, are ADOPTED in full; and
11
3. Defendants’ summary judgment motion (ECF No. 122) is DENIED as to plaintiff’s
12
Eighth Amendment and state law claims against defendant Medina based on the discontinuation
13
of plaintiff’s Tramadol prescription on November 10, 2008; defendants’ motion is GRANTED in
14
all other respects.
15
Dated: October 30, 2013
16
17
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?