Gunn v. Tilton et al

Filing 115

ORDER GRANTING 41 Motion for Summary Judgment and ORDER ADOPTING 114 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Excessive force claims shall proceed to trial against Defendants: Nunley and Medina, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/16/2013. Defendants: Coontz, Phipps and Robb are DISMISSED from this action.(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

KEVIN GUNN,

9

Plaintiff

10
11

CASE No. 1:08-cv-01038-LJO-SAB (PC)

v.
JAMES TILTON, et al.,

12

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos. 41 & 114)

13
Plaintiff Kevin Gunn (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

14
15
16
17
18
19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against
Defendants Nunley and Medina for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and
against Defendants Medina, Nunley, Coontz, Phipps, and Robb for conspiracy to violate
Plaintiff’s due process rights. 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 May 19, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 41.)

20
21
22
23
24

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment addresses only the claim for conspiracy to deprive
Plaintiff of his due process rights. On June 10, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and
recommendation recommending granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
114.) 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

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 10, 2013, in full;

3

2.

The conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s due process rights claim is dismissed and

4

Defendants Coontz, Phipps, and Robb are dismissed from this action;

5

3.

6

The excessive force claim shall proceed to trial against Defendants Nunley and
Medina; and

7

4.

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

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

11

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 16, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13

DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

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