Filed: Jun. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On February 4, 2019 the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. Timely objections to
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On February 4, 2019 the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. Timely objections to ..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On February 4, 2019 the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), 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:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 4, 2019, are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 63) is granted as to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment safety and medical care claims against defendants Lynch and Luis; and
3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 63) is denied as to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Agboli, Yaroch, Lynch, Vallar, Bulawin, and Dayson; and
4. Defendants' motion requiring plaintiff to post security (Doc. 67) is denied.
