Flournoy v. Sacramento County Sheriff Dept et al

Filing 193

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/30/2018 ADOPTING 175 Findings and Recommendations in full. Dr. Bauer's 140 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Dr. Sahba's 138 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Deputy Kinder's 139 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. A final pretrial conference is set for 6/29/2018, at 10:00 a.m. in the event the case does not settle at the settlement conference scheduled with a magistrate judge earlier in June. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES HENRY FLOURNOY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-2844-KJM-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF
DEP’T, et al.,
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 as provided
19
by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On September 25, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed
23

objections to the findings and recommendations.1

24
25
26
27
28

1

On March 5, 2018, plaintiff filed pro se objections to the findings and recommendations.
Defendants filed a response thereto on March 6, 2018. Because plaintiff has been represented by
counsel since February 14, 2018, the court issued a minute order on March 13, 2018 disregarding
his pro se objections and informing plaintiff’s counsel that any objections must be filed not later
than March 28, 2018. Counsel filed no objections. The court also disregards defendants’
response to the disregarded objections.
1

1

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

2

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

3

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed

4

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

5

the proper analysis.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 25, 2017, are adopted in full;

8

2. Dr. Bauer’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 140) is granted;

9

3. Dr. Sahba’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 138) is granted;

10
11
12
13
14

4. Deputy Kinder’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 139) is granted in part
and denied in part, as follows:
a. Summary judgment is granted to Kinder on plaintiff’s § 1983 malicious
prosecution claim; and
b. Summary judgment is denied to Kinder on plaintiff’s excessive force claim.

15

So ordered; and

16

5. A final pretrial conference is set for June 29, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in the event the case

17

does not settle at the settlement conference scheduled with a magistrate judge earlier in June.

18

DATED: March 30, 2018.

19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2