Cranford v. Badagon

Filing 77

ORDER ADOPTING 75 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Defendant Perryman's and Defendant Harder's 59 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/31/2014. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 ARCHIE CRANFORD, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 v. ANGELA BADAGON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 CONSOLIDATED ACTION 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT PERRYMAN’S AND DEFENDANT HARDER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 59, 75) Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 17, 2013, the 19 court consolidated Cranford v. Badagon, 1:11-cv-00736 LJO BAM, with Cranford v. Perryman, 20 et al., 1:13-cv-00906 LJO BAM. This action now proceeds against Defendant Balcagon for 21 excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and against Defendants Perryman and 22 Harder for failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.1 23 On November 26, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 24 Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant Perryman’s and Defendant Harder’s motion for summary 25 judgment be denied, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and judgment be 26 entered in favor of Defendants Perryman and Harder. The Findings and Recommendations were 27 Defendant Balcagon was sued erroneously as “Angela Badagon.” Defendant Harder was sued erroneously as “Charlotte Havder.” 1 28 1 1 served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one 2 days after service. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff filed objections on December 11, 2014. (ECF No. 3 76.) 4 Plaintiff’s objections are unclear. He appears to be reasserting certain of his factual 5 allegations, while simultaneously complaining about a lack of discovery and continued attacks. 6 Plaintiff’s generalized assertions provide no basis to reject the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 7 Recommendations. 8 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 10 objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and 11 by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on November 26, 2014, are adopted 15 2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is 16 DENIED; 17 3. 14 18 in full; Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on April 23, 2014, is GRANTED; 19 4. Judgment shall be entered in favor only of Defendants Perryman and Harder; and 20 5. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Balcagon for 21 excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill December 31, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?