Applegate v. Koker et al

Filing 38

ORDER Adopting 36 Findings and Recommendations to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Defendant's 25 Motion for Summary Judgment on Exhaustion Grounds, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/8/17. CASE to REMAIN OPEN. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 BRIAN APPLEGATE, 14 15 Plaintiff, v. 16 WINFRED KOKOR, 17 Defendant. 18 19 CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01054-AWI-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EXHAUSTION GROUNDS (ECF No. 25) CASE TO REMAIN OPEN 20 21 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma paurperis in this civil rights 22 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 23 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On November 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case issued findings 25 and recommendations to grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion for summary 26 judgment on exhaustion grounds. (ECF No. 36.) Therein, the Judge recommended 27 dismissing Plaintiff’s retaliation claim for failure to exhaust, but found that Plaintiff had 28 properly exhausted his claims relating to the denial of access to an accessible shower 1 and rescission of his ADA status. The parties were given fourteen days to file their 2 objections. No objections were filed, and the time to do so has passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 4 the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 5 entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 6 record and by proper analysis. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on November 2, 2016 (ECF No. 36) in full; 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and 13 3. The case shall proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical 14 indifference claims against Dr. Kokor for denying Plaintiff access to an 15 accessible shower and rescinding Plaintiff’s ADA status. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 8, 2017 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 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?