Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00423-24/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

1 Plaintiff has filed documents entitled “Plaintiff’s Local Rule 78-230(m)

Application for Reconsideration of the findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge:

(Docs. 198, 199, 201, and 202), which the court construes as plaintiff’s objections. Therefore,

plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file objections (Doc. 200) is moot.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY LAMON, No. CIV S-03-0423-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

C.K. PLILER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Eastern District of California local rules.

On December 19, 2007, the magistrate judge filed separate findings and

recommendations (Docs. 192 and 193) herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within

20 days. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.1

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 207 Filed 02/04/08 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 19, 2007 (Docs. 192

and 193), are both adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 139, 140, 141, 146, 148,

149, 152, and 177) are denied;

3. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 156) is construed

as a motion to dismiss and, so construed, is granted;

4. Plaintiff’s religious diet claim is dismissed with prejudice; and

5. Defendants Pliler and Hawthorne are dismissed as defendants to this

action. 

DATED: February 4, 2008.

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 207 Filed 02/04/08 Page 2 of 2