Wilson v. CA Dept Corrections, et al

Filing 162

ORDER ADOPTING 159 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTING in Part and DENYING in Part Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/22/2009. (Sondheim, M)

1 2 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 8 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Jack Allen Wilson ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 12 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 13 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 14 On November 20, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 15 which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the 16 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On December 17, 2008, Plaintiff 17 filed an Objection, and on December 22, 2008, Defendants filed an Objection. 18 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 19 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 20 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. 23 2. 24 entirety; and 25 3. 26 in part and DENIED in part as follows: 27 A. 28 1 As to Plaintiff's claim that the procedure and/or policy, and implementation Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, filed May 7, 2007, is GRANTED Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, filed February 6, 2007, is DENIED in its The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 20, 2008, is adopted in full; / (Docs. 139, 148, and 159) v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., JACK ALLEN WILSON, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:01-cv-06538-LJO-GSA PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 G. F. E. D. C. B.

thereof to serve the Heart Healthy diet with education on self-abstention for diabetics was in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs ­ GRANTED; As to Plaintiff's claim that the procedure and/or policy, and implementation thereof under which he allegedly did not receive a sufficient number of finger-sticks to adequately monitor and control his blood sugar in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs ­ DENIED; As to Plaintiff's claim that the procedure and/or policy, and implementation thereof under which he allegedly did not receive sufficient out of cell exercise in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs ­ DENIED; As to Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Bendon and Yee in their supervisorial capacities and for the rulings on Plaintiff's medical grievances/appeals in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs ­ DENIED; As to Plaintiff's claims under California law that the actions of the defendants amounted to professional negligence/medical malpractice ­ DENIED; As to Plaintiff's claims under California law that the actions of the defendants amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress ­ DENIED; and As to Defendants' claims that they are entitled to qualified immunity DENIED.

January 22, 2009

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2