Thomas v. Antipov et al
Filing
132
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/19/2015 ORDERING that the 131 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Defendants' 112 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to defendants Grinde, Ma, Maciel, McGee, and Park, but GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to defendant Downie and DENIED as to defendant Antipov. Plaintiff's 122 counter-motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to all defendants. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMAAL THOMAS,
12
No. 2:11-cv-1138-MCE-EFB P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ANTIPOV, et al.,
15
ORDER
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 February 12, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
20
21
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
22
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
24
25
supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
26
ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 12, 2015, are adopted in full;
27
28
/////
1
1
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 112) is granted as to defendants
2
Grinde, Ma, Maciel, McGee, and Park, but granted in part and denied in part as to defendant
3
Downie and denied as to defendant Antipov; and
4
3. Plaintiff’s counter-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 122) is denied as to all
5
defendants.
6
Dated: March 19, 2015
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?