Daniels v. Tolson, et al.

Filing 135

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to enter judgment In Favor of Defendant Stu Sherman; ORDER DENYING Motion to Strike as moot 76 , 87 , 127 and 134 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/16/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS III,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

STU SHERMAN,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING
CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT
[ECF Nos. 76, 87, 127, 134]

Plaintiff Norman Gerald Daniels III is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

21

Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and

22

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. The Finding and Recommendations were

23

served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff

24

filed objections on October 6, 2017, and Defendant filed a response on October 20, 2017.

25

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

26

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

27

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In light of that conclusion,

28

Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s sur-reply will be denied as moot.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 3, 2017, are adopted in full;

3

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF NO 76 is DENIED;

4

3.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

5

4.

Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF. No. 134) is DENIED as moot; and

6

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Stu Sherman.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: November 16, 2017

10

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2