Manago v. Williams, et al
Filing
277
ORDER adopting 259 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/15/14: Defendant Brockett's motion for summary judgment 183 , is denied in its entirety. The motion for summary judgment filed by the re maining defendants 164 , is granted in part and denied in part. Pursuant to the surviving claims, this action shall therefore proceed against defendants Brockett, Kelly, Jaffee, Martin, Vance and Kennedy.(Kaminski, H) Modified on 1/17/2014 (Plummer, M).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STEWART MANAGO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:07-cv-2290-TLN-KJN-P
v.
ORDER
BRAD WILLIAMS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 13, 2013, the magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations
20
21
herein (ECF No. 259),1 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties
22
that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.
23
All parties filed objections (ECF Nos. 262, 264, 265), and all parties filed authorized responses
24
thereto (ECF Nos. 268, 269, 271). All objections and replies have been considered by the court.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an
25
26
27
28
objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
1
The findings and recommendations were amended solely for the purpose of correcting a citation
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
1
1
Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see
2
also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed
3
findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and
4
decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th
5
Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi
6
Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
7
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,
8
concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed amended findings and recommendations in
9
full.
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
1. The Amended Findings and Recommendations, filed March 13, 2013 (ECF No. 259),
12
are adopted in full.
2. Defendant Brockett’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 183), is denied in its
13
14
entirety.
15
16
3. The motion for summary judgment filed by the remaining defendants (ECF No. 164),
is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:
17
18
a. Summary judgment is granted for defendants Williams, Shannon, Joseph, Garcia,
Tinseth, Wachter, Morrow, Hill and Gold, who are dismissed from this action.
b. Summary judgment is granted for all remaining defendants on each of plaintiff’s First
19
20
Amendment retaliation claims.
21
22
c. Summary judgment is denied, and this action shall proceed, on the following Eighth
Amendment claims, against the following defendants:
23
i. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Brockett, for alleged sexual misconduct;
24
ii. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Kelly and Jaffee, based on theories of
25
deliberate indifference to serious mental health needs, failure to protect, and supervisory liability;
iii. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Martin, based on theories of deliberate
26
27
indifference to serious mental health needs, and failure to protect, but not supervisory liability;
28
and
2
iv. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Chapman, Vance and Kennedy based on
1
2
3
4
an alleged failure to protect.
4. Pursuant to the surviving claims, this action shall therefore proceed against defendants
Brockett, Kelly, Jaffee, Martin, Chapman, Vance and Kennedy.
5
SO ORDERED.
6
Dated: January 15, 2014
7
8
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
mana2290.jo.amd
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?