Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00111/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00111-8/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

MICHEAL STEVEN KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. DEATHRIAGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00111-LJO-SAB-PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 44)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 41)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On August 19, 2016, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. The parties 

were provided an opportunity to file objections within twenty-one days. On September 9, 2016, 

Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the record to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 46 Filed 09/22/16 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

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 19, 

2016, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part as 

follows:

3. Defendants Deathriage, Martinez, and Briones’s motion for summary judgment 

on the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims is denied;

4. Defendant Angulo’s motion for summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference claims is granted. Judgment is entered on Defendant Angulo’s Eighth 

Amendment deliberate indifference claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 46 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 2