Castillo v. Solano County Jail, et al
Filing
77
ORDER adopting in full 74 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 9/5/11. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss 67 is GRANTED; defendants Stanton, Dolan, Marsh, and Grapentine are DISMISSED from this action. Defend ant Solano County is DISMISSED from this action. The County's motion for summary judgment 65 is DENIED as MOOT. Defendants Kadevar and Pilaczynski's motion for summary judgment 60 is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs is dismissed; plaintiff's remaining failure to protect claim shall proceed to trial. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 71 is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
REYNALDO J. CASTILLO,
11
12
13
14
Petitioner,
vs.
SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Respondents.
15
16
No. 2:08-cv-3080 GEB KJN P
ORDER
/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ
17
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States
18
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
19
On August 12, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
20
herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any
21
objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner
22
has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
23
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
24
304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
25
file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
26
proper analysis.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 12, 2011, are adopted in full;
3
4
5
and
2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 67) is granted; defendants Stanton,
Dolan, Marsh, and Grapentine are dismissed from this action.
6
3. Defendant Solano County is dismissed from this action.
7
4. The motion for summary judgment filed by the County defendants (Dkt. No.
8
9
65) is denied as moot.
5. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Kadevar and
10
Pilaczynski (Dkt. No. 60), is granted in part and denied in part; plaintiff’s claim for
11
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs is dismissed; plaintiff’s remaining
12
“failure to protect” claim shall proceed to trial.
13
14
6. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 71) is denied.
Dated: September 5, 2011
15
16
17
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
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?