ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT DANIEL GONZALES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 141, 169)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT DENNIS BUSCH'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 142, 170)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Johnson, Gonzales, Valdez, Munoz, Sexton, Ross, Thor, Doe, Kul, Busch, Bell, and Smith.

On September 11, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant Gonzales and Defendant Busch on December 12, 2016, be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF Nos. 169, 170.) Those Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (ECF Nos. 169, p. 14; 170, pp. 11-12.) Plaintiff filed objections on October 30, 2017. Defendants did not file objections and have not filed a response to Plaintiff's objections.

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying his request to defer ruling on Defendants' motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(1). Plaintiff argues that this error has compounded the Court's error in denying Plaintiff's motion to compel against Defendant Sexton, (ECF No. 114). Plaintiff's objections provide no grounds for rejection of the Findings and Recommendations denying Plaintiff's request to defer pursuant to Rule 56(d), or for the reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's September 11, 2017 order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel. Plaintiff merely states that he sought "information relevant to the claims of this lawsuit which was calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," but does not address the objections originally raised by Defendant Sexton in opposition to the motion to compel.

Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Gonzales' motion for summary judgment should be denied because the Magistrate Judge erred by considering only the use of force during the cell extraction of another inmate. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gonzales personally approved the use of chemical weapons against the other inmate, and such use was a pretext to assault all prisoners remaining in B section.

Plaintiff's remaining arguments regarding Defendant Gonzales' personal approval of the use of chemical weapons and Defendant Busch's failure to intervene were addressed by the Findings and Recommendations, and are unpersuasive.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.