Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225-55/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

WILLIAM ATCHERLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDGAR CLARK, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv00225 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANT ANDERSON’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Document 166)_

Plaintiff William Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, filed on January 26, 2015, for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment and negligence against numerous Defendants.

On November 26, 2014, Defendant Anderson filed a motion for summary judgment. 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 July 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Defendant’s motion be granted. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties 

and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 300 Filed 08/17/15 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

within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff filed objections on July 23, 2015, and Defendant filed a reply

on August 7, 2015.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections and Defendant’s response, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections are mainly a repeat of 

arguments made in his opposition and addressed by the Magistrate Judge. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 1, 2015, are ADOPTED in 

full;

2. Defendant Anderson’s motion for summary judgment (Document 166) is 

GRANTED; and

3. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Anderson on all claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 300 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 2