Walker v. King et al

Filing 151

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 137 ; ORDER GRANTING 111 Defendants Davis, Nicks, Perryman and Poole's Motion for Summary Judgment; and ORDER Directing Clerk to Enter Judgment in Favor of Defendants Davis, Nicks, Perryman and Poole signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/11/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

ROGER WALKER,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

9
10

Case No. 1:16-cv-01665-AWI-EPG (PC)

(ECF NOS. 111, 137)
TIM POOLE, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12
13

Roger Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

14
15
16

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
This case proceeds “against defendants Saloum, Poole, Perryman, Davis, and Nicks on

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Doc. No. 35,
p. 2).
On December 17, 2019, defendants Davis, Nicks, Perryman, and Poole moved for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 111). On July 10, 2020, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean
entered findings and recommendations, recommending that “[d]efendants Davis, Nicks,
Perryman, and Poole’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 111) be GRANTED,” and that
“[j]udgment be entered in favor of defendants Davis, Nicks, Perryman, and Poole.”1 (Doc. No.
137, p. 20).
1

Defendant Saloum also filed a motion for summary judgment, and the July 2020 findings and
recommendation also addressed Saloum’s motion. Saloum objected to the findings and recommendation. The
Court will address Saloum’s motion and the findings and recommendation as to Saloum’s motion in a separate
order. This order is limited to the motion of Defendants Davis, Nicks, Perryman, and Poole and the analysis of the
findings and recommendation as to their motion.
1

1

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and

2

recommendations. No party has filed objections regarding the recommendation that summary

3

judgment be granted in favor of Defendants Davis, Nicks, Perryman, and Poole.

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 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

and thus, the motion of Defendants Davis, Nicks, Perryman, and Poole will be granted.

8
9

ORDER

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on July 10, 2020

12

(Doc. No. 137) regarding the motion for summary judgment of Defendants Davis,

13

Nicks, Perryman, and Poole is ADOPTED;

14
15
16
17
18

2. Defendants Davis, Nicks, Perryman, and Poole’s motion for summary judgment
(Doc. No. 111) is GRANTED;
3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants Davis, Nicks, Perryman, and
Poole;
4. This case remains open at this time as to Defendant Saloum.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 11, 2020
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2