McElroy v. Cox et al

Filing 156

ORDER Dismissing Claims And Defendants Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/20/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

LATWAN McELROY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
R. COX, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01221 LJO GSA PC
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 50(a)(1).

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. This matter was

18

tried before a jury on June 19, 2012. At the close of Plaintiff’s case, Defendants moved for

19

judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1). The motion

20

was orally argued, and the Court ruled as follows: The motion was granted as to Defendants

21

Hankins and Stinnett, and as to Plaintiff’s failure to protected claim against Defendant Acosta.

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1. Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted as to Defendants

24

Hankins and Stinnett. Judgment to be entered in favor of Defendants Stinnett and Hankins on

25

the ground that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for

26

Plaintiff on his claims against Defendants Hankins and Stinnett.

27
28

2. Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted as to Plaintiff’s failure
to protect claim against Defendant Acosta. Judgment to be entered in favor of Defendant Acosta

1

as to Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim on the ground that a reasonable jury would not have a

2

legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for Plaintiff on his failure to protect claim against

3

Defendant Acosta.

4
5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
b9ed48

June 20, 2012

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

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

2