Woodall v. State of California et al

Filing 99

ORDER Adopting 97 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Senior Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/9/11. A. Olive, M. Sexton, T. Gonzalez, III and T. Lawson terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

NICK WOODALL,

9

1:08-CV-01948-OWW-DLB PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

10
v.

(DOC. 97)

11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
/
14
15

Plaintiff Nick Woodall (“Plaintiff”) is a California state

16

prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

for summary judgment against Defendants Lawson, Sexton, and Olive.

19

Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., Doc. 67.

20

Gonzalez, T. Lawson, A. Olive, and M. Sexton filed a motion for

21

summary judgment.

22

2011, Defendant A. Raygoza filed a motion for summary judgment.

23

Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Doc. 81. The matter was referred to a United

24

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

25

Local Rule 302.

On December 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion

On February 16, 2011, Defendants T.

Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J., Doc. 79.

On March 8,

26

On August 1, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

27

Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained

28

notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and
1

1

Recommendations was to be filed within eighteen days.

2

Neither

3

Recommendations.

4

party

filed

a

timely

Objection

to

the

Doc. 97.

Findings

and

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

5

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case.

6

carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

7

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

8

analysis.

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

11
12

The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 1, 2011,
is adopted in full;

2.

13
14

Having

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed December
7, 2010, is DENIED;

3.

Defendants T. Gonzalez, T. Lawson, A. Olive, and M.

15

Sexton’s motion for summary judgment, filed February 16,

16

2011, is GRANTED;

17

4.

18
19

T. Lawson, A. Olive, and M. Sexton and against Plaintiff;
5.

20
21

24

Defendants T. Gonzalez, T. Lawson, A. Olive, and M.
Sexton are dismissed from this action;

6.

22
23

Summary judgment is granted for Defendants T. Gonzalez,

Defendant Raygoza’s motion for summary judgment, filed
March 8, 2011, is DENIED; and

7.

This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for
further proceedings.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:
September 9, 2011
emm0d6

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2