Carpenter v. Sullivan, et al.

Filing 195

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 191 , Recommending Denying Defendants' 147 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/3/13. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

WILLIE LEE CARPENTER,

9

Plaintiff

10

v.

11

W.J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

12

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:07-cv-00114-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos.147 & 191)

13
Plaintiff Willie Lee Carpenter (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

14
15
16
17
18
19

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
against Defendants Litton, Gonzales, and Pfeil for excessive force in violation of the Eighth
Amendment and against Defendants Barajas, Ortiz, Salazar, and Martinez, for the failure to
protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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 October 12, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 147.)

20
21
22
23

On June 17, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendation recommending
denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety. (ECF No. 191.) Neither party
filed any objections to the findings and recommendations.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this

24
25
26
27
28

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations
to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
///
///

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on June 17, 2013, in full;

3

2.

This action is shall proceed to trial against Defendants Litton, Gonzales, and Pfeil

4

for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and against Defendants

5

Barajas, Ortiz, Salazar, and Martinez, for the failure to protect Plaintiff in violation

6

of the Eighth Amendment; and

7

3.

This matter is referred back to the Magistrate for scheduling purposes.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

12
13

0m8i788

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2