Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMONT SHEPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BASS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 54)

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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.

This action is proceeding on the complaint, filed April 30, 2010, against Defendants Bass and

Miranda for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On November 8, 2011, findings

and recommendations issued recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s official

capacity and declaratory relief claims be granted. (ECF No. 36.) The parties were granted thirty

days to file objections and no objections were filed. On January 10, 2012, an amended order

adopting issued dismissing Plaintiff’s official capacity claims and request for declaratory relief. 

(ECF No. 42.) On January 17, 2012,Plaintiff filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing stating that

he did not receive the findings and objections. (ECF No. 45.) An order issued on February 2, 2012,

denying Plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and granting Plaintiff an opportunity to file

objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff filed

objections to the finding and recommendations on February 10, 2012. (ECF No. 54.).

1

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 56 Filed 02/13/12 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de

novo review of this case. After a carefully review of the entire file, the Court adopted the findings

and recommendations, finding them to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Court

has considered Plaintiff’s objections and finds the order adopting remains valid and intact.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 56 Filed 02/13/12 Page 2 of 2