Aaron McCoy v. Tann et al

Filing 84

ORDER ADOPTING 82 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 57 Defendants James, Jones and Paz's Motion for Summary Judgment; and ORDER GRANTING 60 Defendant Jimenez's Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/7/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

AARON McCOY,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
M. TANN, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO (1) GRANT IN
PART AND DENY IN PART
DEFENDANTS JAMES, JONES, AND
PAZ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND (2) GRANT
DEFENDANT JIMENEZ’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 82)

16
17
18

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the
21 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
22

On March 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

23 to grant in part and deny in part Defendants James, Jones, and Paz’s motion for
24 summary judgment, and to grant Defendant Jimenez’s motion for summary judgment.
25 (ECF No. 82.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concluded that summary judgment
26 should be granted in favor of Defendants James and Jimenez, but denied as to
27 Defendants Jones and Paz. Defendants filed no objections. Plaintiff objects to the
28

1 recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant James. He
2 concedes that summary judgment is appropriate for Defendant Jimenez. (ECF No. 83.)
3

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

4 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
5 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
6 proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of fact or law under the
7 findings and recommendations.
8

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed on March 19,

9

2015 (ECF No. 82), in full;

10

2. Defendants James, Jones, and Paz’s motion for summary judgment (ECF

11

No. 57) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

12
13

a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant James, and

14

b. Summary judgment is denied as to Defendants Jones and Paz;
3. Defendant Jimenez’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 60) is

15

GRANTED; and

16

4. The case shall remain open for further proceedings on Plaintiff’s claims

17
18
19
20

against Defendants Jones and Paz.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

April 7, 2015

Dated:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21

5.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2