McCoy v. Stratton et al

Filing 85

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/12/2017 ADOPTING IN FULL 78 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 51 Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Eighth Amendment Claims against Defendants Stratton, Epp, Barnes, Dingfelder, Sweeney, a nd Hughes; GRANTING 51 Motion for Summary Judgment as to the deliberate indifference and retaliation claims against Defendants Barnes, Wells, Chavez, Martinez, and Slaughter and as to the retaliation claim against Defendant Stratton; DENYING 51 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendants Stratton, Epp, Barnes, Dingfelder, Sweeney, and Hughes's assertion of qualified immunity. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVON E. MCCOY,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-1137 WBS DB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

J. STRATTON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force against correctional officers for taking him to the

19

ground during an escort. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

20

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On March 2, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

22

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

23

findings and recommendations were to be filed within seven days. (ECF No. 78.) Plaintiff has

24

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 81.)

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.

The findings and recommendations filed March 2, 2017 (ECF No. 78) are adopted

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51) is granted in part and

3

in full;

4
5

denied in part;

6
7

3.

Dingfelder, Sweeney, and Hughes concerning the Eighth Amendment claims;

8
9
10

4.

indifference and retaliation claims;
5.

Summary judgment is granted on behalf of defendant Stratton concerning the

retaliation claim; and

13
14

Summary judgment is granted on behalf of defendants Barnes, Wells, Chavez,

Martinez, and Slaughter for failure to exhaust administrative remedies concerning the deliberate

11
12

Summary judgment is denied on behalf of defendants Stratton, Epp, Barnes,

6.

Summary judgment is denied as to defendants Stratton, Epp, Barnes, Dingfelder,

Sweeney, and Hughes concerning their assertion of qualified immunity.

15

Dated: April 12, 2017

16
17
18
19
20

DLB:10

21

/ mcco.1137.805.cjra

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2