McCoy v. Holguin et al
Filing
96
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 91 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING IN PART Defendants' 75 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/24/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LAKEITH L. MCCOY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD-MJS
v.
A. HOLGUIN, et al.,
15
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants.
16
(Doc. No. 91)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
17
18
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
19
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States
20
District Court for the Eastern District of California.
21
On January 19, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
22
recommending that defendants’ July 17, 2017 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 75) be to
23
granted in part because plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to
24
certain defendants prior to filing suit. (Doc. No. 75.) Specifically, the magistrate judge
25
recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa
26
Maria, Bennett, and DeLuna. The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion be
27
denied in all other respects. (Id.)
28
/////
1
1
Plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations in which he argued, in
2
part, that it is undisputed that he did exhaust his claim against defendant Bennett. (Doc. No. 92 at
3
3.) Additionally, plaintiff objects to the findings that he did not exhaust administrative remedies
4
as to defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa Maria, and DeLuna, arguing that the inmate grievance
5
form failed to provide him with sufficient space to do so. (Id. at 4–5.) Plaintiff also argues that in
6
his inmate appeal, he requested the identities of the staff members who oversaw the buildings
7
where these alleged events took place, and that request was sufficient to exhaust his
8
administrative remedies as to defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa Maria, and DeLuna. (Id. at 5–
9
6.) No other objections have been filed and the time for doing so has passed.
10
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
11
de novo review of this case. However, upon review of the entire file, it appears that defendants
12
have conceded that plaintiff did, in fact, exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claim
13
against defendant Bennett. (See Doc. No. 90 at 9, fn. 1.) In this regard, defendants state that
14
“Nurse Bennett therefore withdraws her request for summary judgment for failure to exhaust
15
administrative remedies.” (Id.) Accordingly, the granting of summary judgment in favor of
16
defendant Bennett is not appropriate, and the court declines to adopt that aspect of the magistrate
17
judge’s findings and recommendation. (Doc. No. 91 at 12.)
18
Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the remainder of the findings and
19
recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The granting of summary
20
judgment in favor of defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa Maria, and DeLuna is appropriate in light
21
of the evidence presented on summary judgment. Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and
22
recommendations with respect to these defendants do not raise any issue of law or fact that would
23
suggest otherwise. Though plaintiff requested the identities of the staff members who oversaw
24
the building where the alleged events took place, he did not make any allegations in his inmate
25
grievance that additional individuals witnessed the incident but failed to intervene. For that
26
reason, claims against defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa Maria, and DeLuna must be dismissed
27
due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
28
/////
2
1
Accordingly,
2
1. The court adopts the findings and recommendations filed January 19, 2018 (Doc. No.
3
4
91) in part;
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 75) is granted in part and
5
denied in part as follows:
6
a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants Holland, Kilmer, Santa
7
Maria, and DeLuna and they are terminated from this action;
8
b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 75) is denied as to
9
defendant Bennett and in all other respects.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 24, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?