Jackson v. Pletcher et al

Filing 254

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/3/2014 ADOPTING IN FULL 249 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING Defendant M. Osman's 225 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND D. JACKSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2: 11-cv-1157 JAM KJN P

v.

ORDER

STEVEN PLETCHER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action

18

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 4, 2014, 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 and defendant has filed a response to plaintiff’s

24

objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

25
26

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

2

analysis.1

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2014 are adopted in full; and

5

2. Defendant Osman’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 225) is granted.

6

DATED: November 3, 2014

7

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In his objections, plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that the magistrate judge erred in excluding the
declaration of plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Lopchinsky. Pls. Objs. at 2-3. This assertion is incorrect.
Dr. Lopchinsky’s declaration has not been excluded. It has been fully considered by the
magistrate judge, see Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 249) at 11-14, and by this court.
2