Aubert v. Madruga et al
Filing
54
ORDER ADOPTING 51 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTING In Part and DENYING In Part Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 28 and 42 ; ORDER Entering Partial Summary J udgment In Favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's Claim for Injunctive Relief; ORDER for this case to proceed against Defendants Hobbs and Madruga for use of excessive force; Case referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for futher proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/24/16. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ESS’NN A. AUBERT,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
No. 1:13-cv-01659-DAD-EPG
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
E. MADRUGA and B. HOBBS,
(Doc. No. 51)
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 28, 42)
ORDER ENTERING PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS
ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED
AGAINST DEFENDANTS HOBBS AND
MADRUGA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE
FORCE
25
26
Plaintiff Ess’nn A. Aubert is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action
27
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
28
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
1
1
On May 17, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
2
recommending that (1) plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and (2) defendants’
3
motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 51.) On June 20,
4
2016, defendants filed objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 52.)
5
Plaintiff has not filed any objections.
6
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
7
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
8
including the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
9
proper analysis.
10
Accordingly,
11
1. The May 17, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 51) are adopted in full;
12
2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 28) is denied;
13
3. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 42) is denied except with
respect to plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief;
14
15
4. Partial summary judgment is entered in favor of defendants with respect to plaintiff’s
16
request for injunctive relief;
17
5. This case now proceeds only against defendants Hobbs and Madruga for use of
18
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
19
20
21
6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
August 24, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?