Stringham v. Bick et al

Filing 96

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/25/2014 ORDERING that the 89 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL. Plaintiff's 76 renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendants' 68 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's 92 Motion to Strike is DENIED as unnecessary. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GUY T. STRINGHAM,

12
13
14

No. 2:09-cv-0286 MCE DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

J. BICK, 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.

20

On October 11, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein,

21

ECF No. 89, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

22

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Both

23

parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In addition, Plaintiff has filed

24

a motion to strike Defendants’ objections as untimely.

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

27

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

28

analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

The Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 89, filed October 11, 2013 are
ADOPTED IN FULL;

4

2.

Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 76, is DENIED;

5

3.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 68, is GRANTED IN

6

PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

7

a.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth

8

Amendment claims are granted as to Defendant Moreno but denied as to

9

Defendants Bick, Andreasen, Khoury, Donahue, and Thomas;

10

b.

11

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s request for
injunctive relief under ADA is denied;

12

c.

13

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for
damages under ADA is DENIED;

14

d.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s request for

15

injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a diabetic diet, personal

16

glucometer, cotton blankets, egg-crate mattress pads, daily showers, in-cell

17

meals, and prohibition on his temporary placement in brightly lit areas

18

during cell or unit searches are GRANTED; and

19

e.

20

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment based on the affirmative
defense of qualified immunity is DENIED.

21

4.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 92, is DENIED as unnecessary.

Dated: March 25, 2014

24
25
26
27
28
2