Samuels v. Woods, et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/19/13 ORDERING that The Findings and Recommendations filed 2/21/13 57 , are ADOPTED in full; Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment 41 is construed as a MOTION for Summary Adjudication and , so construed, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Summary adjudication is GRATED in favor of defendants Silva, Baker, and Hernandez; Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to defendants Woods and Masuret on Plaintiff's medical needs claim; Su mmary Adjudication is DENIED as to Defendant Walker on Plaintiff's safety claim; All other pending Motions 21 , 45 , 49 are DENIED as moot; and this matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT E. SAMUELS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:10-CV-2689-LKK-CMK-P

vs.

ORDER

WOODS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern

19

District of California local rules.

20

On February 21, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

21

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file

22

objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have

23

been filed.

24

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

25

supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

26

///
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The findings and recommendations filed February 21, 2013, are adopted in

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41) is construed as a

3

full;

4
5

motion for summary adjudication and, so construed, is granted in part and denied in part;

6

3.

Summary adjudication is granted in favor of defendants Silva, Baker, and

8

4.

Summary adjudication is denied as to defendants Woods and Masuret on

9

plaintiff’s medical needs claim;

10

5.

Summary adjudication is denied as to defendant Walker on plaintiff’s

12

6.

All other pending motions (Docs. 21, 45, and 49) are denied as moot; and

13

7.

This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further

7

11

14

Hernandez;

safety claim;

proceedings consistent with this order.

15
16

Dated: April 19, 2013

17
18
19
20

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
2