Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01771/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01771-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON McCOY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. TANN, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO (1) GRANT IN 

PART AND DENY IN PART 

DEFENDANTS JAMES, JONES, AND 

PAZ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; AND (2) GRANT 

DEFENDANT JIMENEZ’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 82)

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought 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 of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

On March 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 

to grant in part and deny in part Defendants James, Jones, and Paz’s motion for 

summary judgment, and to grant Defendant Jimenez’s motion for summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 82.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concluded that summary judgment 

should be granted in favor of Defendants James and Jimenez, but denied as to 

Defendants Jones and Paz. Defendants filed no objections. Plaintiff objects to the 

Case 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 04/07/15 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

2

recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant James. He 

concedes that summary judgment is appropriate for Defendant Jimenez. (ECF No. 83.) 

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. Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of fact or law under the 

findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed on March 19, 

2015 (ECF No. 82), in full; 

2. Defendants James, Jones, and Paz’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 

No. 57) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant James, and 

b. Summary judgment is denied as to Defendants Jones and Paz;

3. Defendant Jimenez’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 60) is 

GRANTED; and

4. The case shall remain open for further proceedings on Plaintiff’s claims

against Defendants Jones and Paz.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5.

Case 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 2