McElroy v. Gustafson et al

Filing 86

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/11/2015 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83 are ADOPTED in FULL; Plaintiff's 34 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendants' 44 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Gustafson , but GRANTED as to T. V. Virga, B. Deems and Robertson; Plaintiff's 72 Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendants' 73 Motion to Strike plaintiff's supplemental motion is DENIED; Plaintiff's 78 Motion for Rebuttal of defendant's motion to strike is DENIED; Plaintiff's 74 , 79 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; and this action proceeds solely as to Plaintiff's Eight Amendment claims against Gustafson. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LATWAHN McELROY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-1518-TLN-EFB P

v.

ORDER

GUSTAFSON, et al.,

15

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 January 9, 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. Plaintiff has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

24
25

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

26

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

27

proper analysis.

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 9, 2015, are adopted in full;

3

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is denied;

4

3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) is denied as to Gustafson,

5

but granted as to Robertson, Deems, and Virga;

6

4. Plaintiff’s “Supplemental Motion to Summary Judgment” (ECF No. 72) is denied;

7

5. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion (ECF No. 73) is denied;

8

6. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Rebuttal” of Defendant’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 78) is

9

denied;

10

7. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 74, 79) is denied; and

11

8. This action proceeds solely as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against

12

Gustafson.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: March 11, 2015

16

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2