Laneley v. Garcia et al

Filing 60

ORDER ADOPTING 59 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING 52 Motion for Summary Judgment; case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/1/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY LANGLEY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
E. GARCIA; G. COOK,

No. 1:16-cv-01299-NONE-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 52, 59)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Randy Langley is a former detainee in county jail proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred

19

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On March 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 52.)

21

Therein, defendants argue that the uncontested facts show they did not use excessive force against

22

plaintiff and are entitled to qualified immunity. (See Doc. 52-1.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to

23

defendants’ motion on April 16, 2020, to which defendants filed a reply. (Doc. Nos. 54-55.)

24

On July 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

25

recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. No. 59.) The

26

magistrate judge found that genuine disputes over material facts made the granting of summary

27

judgment in defendants’ favor, including on qualified immunity grounds, inappropriate. (Id. at

28

8.) The findings and recommendations were served on defendants and contained notice that any

1

objections thereto were to be filed within 21 days. (Id. at 10.) Defendants have not filed any

2

objections and the time to do so has passed.

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

4

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

5

and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

6

Accordingly,

7

1.

8

The findings and recommendations issued on July 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 59) are
adopted in full;

9

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 52) is denied; and,

10

3.

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 1, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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