Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02757/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02757-24/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:09-cv-2757 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

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

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

On August 8, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 

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 

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.

////

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 148 Filed 10/31/13 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

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 145) of the August 8, 2013 

order (ECF No. 140) denying his motion for an extension of time to obtain newly discovered 

evidence (ECF No. 124). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 147) of 

the order (ECF No. 144) denying his motion to compel (ECF No. 143). 

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless 

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it 

does not appear that the magistrate judge’s rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 145 and 147) are DENIED;

2. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2013, are ADOPTED in full; and 

3. Defendants’ summary judgment motion (ECF No. 122) is DENIED as to plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment and state law claims against defendant Medina based on the discontinuation 

of plaintiff’s Tramadol prescription on November 10, 2008; defendants’ motion is GRANTED in 

all other respects.

Dated: October 30, 2013

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 148 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 2