King v. Calistro

Filing 55

ORDER Adopting 53 Findings and Recommendations, Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Calistro's 34 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/30/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALTON KING,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CALISTRO,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00698-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
CALISTRO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
[ECF Nos. 34, 53]

Plaintiff Alton King 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 September 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

21

Recommendations recommending that Defendant Calistro’s motion for summary judgment be granted

22

as to Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference and denied as to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation. The

23

Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were

24

to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on October 17, 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, including Plaintiff’s objections,

27

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

28

analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on September 14, 2017, are adopted in full;

3

2.

Defendant Calistro’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff’s claim for

4
5
6

deliberate indifference and denied as to Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation; and
3.

The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for trial scheduling on

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: November 30, 2017

10

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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