Candler v. Stewart et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/18/2019 ADOPTING in FULL 36 Findings and Recommendations. DENYING 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. GRANTING 26 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, with respect to Plaintiff's remaining cla ims for excessive force arising under the Eighth Amendment and retaliation arising under the First Amendment against Defendant Lebeck; and Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff's remaining claims arising under the Eighth Amendment for denial of medical care against Defendants Lebeck and Huynh. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEITH CANDLER,

12

No. 2:17-cv-02436-TLN-CKD

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

J. STEWART, 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 August 5, 2019, 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. (ECF No. 36.) Neither

23

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1
Where, as here, neither party contests the proposed findings of fact, the Court presumes

24
25

they are correct. (See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979).) The magistrate

26
27
28

1

The Court notes that, while Plaintiff did not file objections to the findings and
recommendations, he did file a motion to appoint counsel in which he acknowledges the recent
findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 37.)
1

1

judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. (See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist.,

2

708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).) Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and

3

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 5, 2019 (ECF No. 36), are adopted in

6

full;

7

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is DENIED;

8

3. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED with

9
10
11

respect to Plaintiff’s remaining claims for excessive force arising under the Eighth Amendment
and retaliation arising under the First Amendment against Defendant Lebeck; and
4. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s

12

remaining claims arising under the Eighth Amendment for denial of medical care against

13

Defendants Lebeck and Huynh.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2019

16
17
18
19

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2