Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00296/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00296-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O AUSTIN et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-00296-DAD-BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTIONS

(Doc. Nos. 52, 55, 63)

Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On November 21, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending the denial of (1) plaintiff’s first motion for preliminary 

injunctive relief, filed June 30, 2016 (Doc. No. 52), and (2) plaintiff’s first motion for an order of 

protection, filed August 8, 2016 (Doc. No. 55), as supplemented (Doc. No. 59). (Doc. No. 63.) 

The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections 

thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. That deadline has passed, and no objections were 

filed.

/////

Case 1:12-cv-00296-DAD-BAM Document 76 Filed 01/30/17 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

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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. 

Accordingly,

1. The November 21, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 63) are adopted in 

full; 

2. Plaintiff’s first motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 52) is denied; and

3. Plaintiff’s first motion for an order of protection (Doc. No. 55), as supplemented (Doc. 

No. 59), is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00296-DAD-BAM Document 76 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 2