Sutherland v. Yates et al

Filing 94

ORDER ADOPTING 90 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/19/2014. 49 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Defendant Yates and DENIED as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claims and State Law Claims Against Defendants Jericoff and Fernando. (Jessen, A)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

Case No. 1:09 cv 02152 LJO GSA PC

WILLIAM SUTHERLAND,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 90)

vs.

JAMES YATES, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28
19
20
21
22
23

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On January 15, 2014, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. The parties
were provided an opportunity to file objections within thirty days. On February 13, 2014,

24

Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
25
26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this

27

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

28

1

1
2

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

3

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 15,
4
5

2014, are adopted in full;

6

2. This Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to Defendant Yates.

7

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied as to Plaintiff’s Eighth

8
9

Amendment claims and state law claims against Defendants Jericoff and Fernando.
4. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law

10
11
12

claim of negligent hiring.
5. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:
16

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

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

February 19, 2014

2