Chess v. Dovey et al

Filing 107

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/29/11 ORDERING the findings and recommendations [1-1] ADOPTED IN FULL; dfts' motion for summary judgment 90 DENIED as to pltf's claim that dfts denied him adequate treatment for his pain; and it is DENIED as to pltf's claim that dfts knowingly prescribed him medication that was harmful to his liver; and this motion is GRANTED in all other respects. (Carlos, K)

-DAD (PC) Chess v. Dovey et al

Doc. 107

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 vs. J. DOVEY, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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. On February 15, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Defendant has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL CHESS, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1767 LKK DAD P

ORDER

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 15, 2011 (Doc. No. 101), are adopted in full; 2. Defendants' August 4, 2010 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 90) is denied as to plaintiff's claim that the defendants denied him constitutionally adequate treatment for his pain; 3. Defendants' August 4, 2010 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 90) is denied as to plaintiff's claim that the defendants knowingly prescribed him medication that was harmful to his liver; and 4. Defendants' August 4, 2010 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 90) is granted in all other respects. DATED: March 29, 2011.

2