Lacy v. Tyson et al

Filing 161

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 160 ; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 121 ; DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS PEACOCK AND TYSON FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF, AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS T. REYNA, CORREA, BREMNAR, AND BROOKWALTER FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/22/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY ANDRE LACY,

12
13
14
15

1:07-cv-00381-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 160.)

vs.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 121.)

H. TYSON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

18

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED
AGAINST DEFENDANTS PEACOCK AND
TYSON FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT
PLAINTIFF, AND AGAINST
DEFENDANTS T. REYNA, CORREA,
BREMNAR, AND BROOKWALTER FOR
USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Gary Andre Lacy (APlaintiff@) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

27

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

28

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

1

On January 6, 2016, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

2

Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part.

3

(ECF No. 160.) The parties were granted thirty days in which to file objections to the findings

4

and recommendations. (Id.) The thirty day time period has passed, and no objections have

5

been filed.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

7

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

8

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

9

analysis.

10

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

11

1.

12

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on January
6, 2016, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

13

2.

14

Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment, filed on June 29, 2012, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

15

3.

Defendants are GRANTED summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s excessive force

16

claims against Defendant Peacock, and Plaintiff’s medical claims against

17

Defendants Bremnar, Brookwalter, Peacock, Tyson, Aspeitia-Fleming, and

18

Patel;

19

4.

Defendants are DENIED summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims that

20

Defendants Peacock and Tyson failed to protect him, and Plaintiff’s excessive

21

force claims against Defendants T. Reyna, Correa, Bremnar, and Brookwalter;

22

5.

23

Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity, for Plaintiff’s claims at issue
against them, is DENIED;

24

6.

This case now proceeds against Defendants Peacock and Tyson for failure to

25

protect Plaintiff, and against Defendants T. Reyna, Correa, Bremnar, and

26

Brookwalter for use of excessive force;

27

///

28

///
2

1

7.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants

2

Aspeitia-Fleming and Patel, and to reflect their termination from this case on the

3

docket; and

4

8.

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

February 22, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3