Colbert v. Chavez et al

Filing 80

ORDER ADOPTING 79 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 52 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/09/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE K. COLBERT,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
P. CHAVEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 52, 79)

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff George K. Colbert is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 1, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed

22

findings and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment

23

(Doc. No. 52) be granted in part and denied in part. Those findings and recommendations were

24

served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty

25

days. No objections were filed by either party.

26

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

27

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

28

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper legal analysis.
1

1

Accordingly,

2

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 79), filed on February 1, 2016, are

3

ADOPTED IN FULL in full; and

4

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 52) is GRANTED in part and

5

DENIED in part as follows:

6

a. The Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Farnsworth is DISMISSED for

7

failure to exhaust administrative remedies;

8

b. The Eight Amendment claim against defendant Emard for use of excessive

9

force by pushing plaintiff on the stairs on September 6, 2008 is DISMISSED for

10

failure to exhaust administrative remedies;

11

c. The motion for summary adjudication of the excessive force and retaliation

12

claims against defendants Ramirez and Flores and failure to protect claim against

13

defendant Farnsworth for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is DENIED;

14

d. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of the excessive force and failure

15

to protect claims is DENIED; and

16

e. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of the retaliation claim is

17

DENIED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 9, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2