Sims v. Cabrera et al
Filing
53
ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Denying Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment On The Pleadings, Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment, And Denying Parties' Motions To Strike (Docs. 18 , 27 , 29 , 30 and 41 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/23/2015. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
QUINCY SIMS,
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
13
M. CABRERA,
14
Defendant.
Case No. 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PARTIES’
MOTIONS TO STRIKE
(Docs. 18, 27, 29, 30, and 41)
15
_____________________________________/
16
17
Plaintiff Quincy Sims (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 21, 2012. This
19 action for damages is proceeding against Defendant M. Cabrera (“Defendant”) for failing to
20 protect Plaintiff from the threat of harm by gang members or affiliates while he was at Kern
21 Valley State Prison, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
22
This action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
23 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings
24 and Recommendations which contained notice to the parties that Objections to the Findings and
25 Recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. No Objections were filed.
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 analysis.
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
The Findings and Recommendations, filed on December 8, 2014, is adopted in full;
3
2.
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to exhaust is
4
5
DENIED, without prejudice to renewal under Rule 56 (doc. 18);
3.
6
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, without prejudice, as
procedurally deficient (doc. 27);
7
4.
Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s “surreply” is DENIED (doc. 29); and
8
5.
Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED as moot (doc.
9
30).
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
January 23, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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?