Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529-23/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

JEFF HARNDEN, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

KEY, et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

1:02-cv-06529-LJO-GSA-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 135)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 111)

ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

SCHEDULING

Plaintiff, Jeff Harnden (“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 January 16, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On January 28, 2008, plaintiff filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendations. On February 5, 2008, defendants

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. On

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 142 Filed 03/07/08 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

February 15, 2008, plaintiff filed a reply to the Findings and

Recommendations.

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 January 16,

2008, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed February

22, 2007, is GRANTED as to plaintiff’s retaliation claim and

DENIED as to all other claims;

3. The case proceed against defendants Vogel, Key, and

Keener for excessive force, and against defendant Key for denial

of medical care; and

4. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

further scheduling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 142 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2