Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00446/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00446-55/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

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

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 18, 2016, the magistrate 

judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment in this matter be denied. (ECF No. 226.) The Findings and Recommendations were served 

on the parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty (20) days of service. Over 

thirty (30) days have passed, and no objections were filed. 

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 

Recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GALLAGHER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00446-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

(ECF No. 226)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 176)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 214)

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 228 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated February 18, 2016, (ECF No. 226), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 176), and motion for an order 

granting summary judgment, (ECF No. 214), are DENIED; and

3. This matter shall proceed to a jury trial on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Romero 

for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against 

Defendants Gallagher and Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and 

failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 228 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 2