Puckett v. Vogel

Full title: DURRELL A. PUCKETT, Plaintiff, v. SGT. RONALD VOGEL, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 25, 2015

Case No. 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO (PC)

06-25-2015

DURRELL A. PUCKETT, Plaintiff, v. SGT. RONALD VOGEL, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT, AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' RULE 56(D) MOTIONS AS MOOT (Docs. 51, 52, 54, and 55)

Plaintiff Durrell A. Puckett, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 12, 2013. This action for damages is proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, and Johnson for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, Johnson, Dean, Bolander, Abadia, Lockhart, Zamora, Sisneros, Campos, and Callow for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, and Johnson for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In response, Defendant Zamora filed a Rule 56(d) motion on March 9, 2015, and Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, Johnson, Dean, Bolander, Lockhart, Sisneroz, Campos, and Callow filed a Rule 56(d) motion on March 24, 2015. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302; and on May 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending Plaintiff's motion be denied, without prejudice, on the ground that it is procedurally deficient and Defendants' motions be denied as moot. The parties did not file objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 on May 20, 2015, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, filed on March 4, 2015, is DENIED, without prejudice, on procedural grounds; and

3. Defendants' Rule 56(d) motions, filed on March 9, 2015, and March 24, 2015, are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 25, 2015

/s/_________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE