Warner v. Cate et al
Filing
120
ORDER ADOPTING 116 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 99 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and ORDER DENYING 108 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay the Proceedings signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/15/2016. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
EARL WARNER,
14
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
M. CATE, et al.,
17
Defendants.
18
CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01146-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
DEFENDNATS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 116)
CASE TO REMAIN OPEN
19
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant
20
21
22
23
24
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to
protect claim against Defendants Walker, Prokop, Fellows, Spralding, and Davis 1. The
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 16, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
25
26
27
28
(ECF No. 116) to deny Defendants’ March 7, 2016 motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 99) and deny Plaintiff’s May 25, 2016 request to stay the proceedings pursuant to
1
Formerly Defendant D. McGaha.
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). (ECF No. 108.) The Magistrate Judge imposed a
2
fourteen day objection deadline. (ECF No. 116.) To date, neither party has filed any
3
objections, and the time for doing so has passed.
4
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
5
the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the
6
entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the
7
record and by proper analysis.
8
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on August 16,
10
2016 (ECF No. 116) in full;
11
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 99) is DENIED;
12
3. Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings pursuant to Rule 56(d) (ECF No.
13
108) is DENIED; and
14
4. The case shall proceed against Defendants Walker, Prokop, Fellows,
15
Spralding, and Davis on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect
16
claim.
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
September 15, 2016
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
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?