King v. Deathriage et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING 44 Findings and Recommendation; ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' 41 Motion Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/22/16. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHEAL STEVEN KING,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-00111-LJO-SAB-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 44)

v.
S. DEATHRIAGE, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 41)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 19, 2016, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. The parties
were provided an opportunity to file objections within twenty-one days. On September 9, 2016,
Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court finds the record to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

28

1

1

1.

The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 19,

2 2016, are adopted in full;
3

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part as

4 follows:
5

3.

Defendants Deathriage, Martinez, and Briones’s motion for summary judgment

6 on the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims is denied;
7

4.

Defendant Angulo’s motion for summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment

8 deliberate indifference claims is granted. Judgment is entered on Defendant Angulo’s Eighth
9 Amendment deliberate indifference claim.
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

September 22, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2