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)

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