Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALMIEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06658-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL

(Doc. 131)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Docs. 65, 67, and 111) 

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO

REMAINING CLAIM

Plaintiff William Garcia (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in 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 72-302.

On February 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an objection on

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 135 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Defendant Bradish objects to the use of the terminology summary adjudication rather than summary 1

judgment. This action is not terminated by the grant of defendants’ motions, and this order is not immediately

appealable. It is for this reason that the Magistrate Judge used the terminology summary adjudication, or partial

summary judgment, rather than summary judgment, and the Court finds no error. It is clear in the Findings and

Recommendations that all pending claims against the moving parties will be resolved by the grant of their motions. 

 Defendants Snow, Nguyen, Smith, and Ramirez object on the same ground as defendant Bradish, and their 2

untimely objection appears to have been prompted by their receipt of defendant Bradish’s objection.

2

February 24, 2006, and defendant Bradish filed an objection on March 9, 2006. Defendants Snow, 1

Nguyen, Smith, and Ramirez filed an untimely objection on March 10, 2006.2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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 7, 2006, is adopted in full;

2. Defendants Snow, Nguyen, Smith, and Ramirez’s motion for adjudication on

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against them, filed August 12, 2005, is

GRANTED, thus resolving the claims against these defendants in their entirety; 

2. Defendant Bradish’s motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claims against her, filed November 14, 2005, is GRANTED, thus

resolving the claim against this defendant in its entirety; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed August 5, 2005, is DENIED;

and

4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on

plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Vijaya Katukota.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 135 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 2