Puckett v. Vogel et al

Filing 92

ORDER ADOPTING 83 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that both Plaintiff's and Defendant Zamora's 69 76 Motions for Summary Judgment be Denied signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/11/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11
12

1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO (PC)

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,,
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT BOTH
PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT
ZAMORA’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT BE DENIED

v.
VOGEL, et al.,
Defendants.

(Docs. 69, 76, 83)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff, Durrell Anthony Puckett, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action on claims against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, and Johnson
for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, Johnson,
Dean, Bolander, Abadia, Lockhart, Zamora, Sisneros, Campos, and Callow for excessive force in
violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, and Johnson for
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff and Defendant Zamora filed motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 69, 76.) On

24

January 26, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations to deny both

25

motions. (Doc. 83.) The Findings and Recommendations was served on that same date and

26

provided thirty days for the parties to file objections. (Id.) Despite lapse of more than the

27

allowed time, no objections were filed.

28

1

1

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

2

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

3

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on January 26, 2016 (Doc. 83), is

6
7
8
9
10

adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 69), filed on July 23, 2015, is
DENIED;
3. Defendant Zamora’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 76), filed on September 11,
2015, is DENIED; and

11

4. It is noted that this action has been scheduled for a settlement conference on May 5,

12

2016. (Doc. 91.) If the settlement conference is not successful, this action will

13
14

thereafter be set for trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
Dated: March 11, 2016
16

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2