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
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?