Lacy v. H. Tyson

Full title: GARY ANDRE LACY, Plaintiff, v. H. TYSON, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 22, 2016

1:07-cv-00381-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2016)

Opinion

1:07-cv-00381-LJO-GSA-PC

02-22-2016

GARY ANDRE LACY, Plaintiff, v. H. TYSON, et al., Defendants.

Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 160.) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 121.) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS PEACOCK AND TYSON FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF, AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS T. REYNA, CORREA, BREMNAR, AND BROOKWALTER FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE

Gary Andre Lacy ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 6, 2016, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 160.) The parties were granted thirty days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The thirty day time period has passed, and no objections have been filed.

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

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 6, 2016, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment, filed on June 29, 2012, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

3. Defendants are GRANTED summary judgment as to Plaintiff's excessive force claims against Defendant Peacock, and Plaintiff's medical claims against Defendants Bremnar, Brookwalter, Peacock, Tyson, Aspeitia-Fleming, and Patel;

4. Defendants are DENIED summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claims that Defendants Peacock and Tyson failed to protect him, and Plaintiff's excessive force claims against Defendants T. Reyna, Correa, Bremnar, and Brookwalter;

5. Defendants' motion for qualified immunity, for Plaintiff's claims at issue against them, is DENIED;

6. This case now proceeds against Defendants Peacock and Tyson for failure to protect Plaintiff, and against Defendants T. Reyna, Correa, Bremnar, and Brookwalter for use of excessive force;

/// ///

7. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants Aspeitia-Fleming and Patel, and to reflect their termination from this case on the docket; and

8. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22 , 2016

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE