Hardy v. Davis et al

Filing 118

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/18/2017 ADOPTING IN FULL 102 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 83 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; GRANTING 84 Motion for Summary Judgment concerning the plaintiff's Fourth and Eig hth Amendment claims against Defendant Davis and the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Morris and Zahniser; DENYING 84 Motion for Summary Judgment and qualified immunity concerning the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against Defendants Morris and Zahniser. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRISTIN HARDY,

12

No. 2:13-cv-00726 JAM DB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C DAVIS, 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 May 5 and 6, 2016, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos.

20
21

83; 84.) On February 8, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

22

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

23

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 102.)

24

Plaintiff and defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF Nos. 109;

25

110.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26
27

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

28

////
1

1

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

2

analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 8, 2017 (ECF No. 102) are adopted

5

in full;

6

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 83) is denied;

7

3.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 84) is granted in part and

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

denied in part;
4.

Defendant Davis is entitled to summary judgment concerning plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment claim and Eighth Amendment claim;
5.

Defendants Morris and Zahniser are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim;
6.

Defendants Morris and Zahniser are denied summary judgment on plaintiff’s

Fourth Amendment claim; and
7.

Defendants Morris and Zahniser are denied qualified immunity concerning

16

plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim.

17

DATED: MAY 18, 2017

18

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2