Jacques v. Lopez, Jr. et al

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING 43 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendants' 37 Motion for Summary Judgment ; This matter shall now proceed only on plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force against defen dants Athie, Garza, Lopez, and Razo, and for failure to intervene against defendant Vasquez; ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant Aro ; This matter is referred back to assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/30/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL JACQUES, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:16-cv-01289-DAD-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, v. J. LOPEZ, JR., et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 37, 43) 17 18 Plaintiff Michael Jacques is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 17, 2018, defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. No. 37.) On August 2, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued 23 findings and recommendations recommending that the motion for summary judgment filed on 24 behalf of defendants Athie, Garza, Lopez, Razo, and Vasquez with respect to plaintiff’s claims 25 for excessive force and failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment be denied, and 26 that the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendant Aro with respect to plaintiff’s 27 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment 28 be granted. (Doc. No. 43.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 1 1 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after 2 service. (Id. at 25.) More than twenty-one days have passed since the findings and 3 recommendations were served, and no objections have been filed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 5 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 6 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. 9 The findings and recommendations issued on August 2, 2019, (Doc. No. 43), are adopted in full and defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 37) is 10 granted in part and denied in part; 11 a. The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendants Athie, Garza, 12 Lopez, Razo, and Vasquez with respect to plaintiff’s claims for excessive force 13 and failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Doc. No. 37), is 14 denied; 15 b. The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendant Aro with 16 respect to plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 17 in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Doc. No. 37), is granted; 18 2. This matter shall now proceed only on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for 19 excessive force against defendants Athie, Garza, Lopez, and Razo, and for failure 20 to intervene against defendant Vasquez; 21 3. Judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant Aro as to plaintiff’s claim for 22 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 23 Amendment against that defendant; and 24 4. 25 26 27 28 This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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?