Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANGELA BADAGON, et al.,

 Defendants.

CONSOLIDATED ACTION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DEFENDANT PERRYMAN’S AND 

DEFENDANT HARDER’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 59, 75)

 Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 17, 2013, the 

court consolidated Cranford v. Badagon, 1:11-cv-00736 LJO BAM, with Cranford v. Perryman, 

et al., 1:13-cv-00906 LJO BAM. This action now proceeds against Defendant Balcagon for 

excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and against Defendants Perryman and 

Harder for failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.1

On November 26, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant Perryman’s and Defendant Harder’s motion for summary 

judgment be denied, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and judgment be 

entered in favor of Defendants Perryman and Harder. The Findings and Recommendations were 

 

1 Defendant Balcagon was sued erroneously as “Angela Badagon.” Defendant Harder was sued erroneously as 

“Charlotte Havder.”

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 77 Filed 01/05/15 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

served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one 

days after service. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff filed objections on December 11, 2014. (ECF No. 

76.) 

Plaintiff’s objections are unclear. He appears to be reasserting certain of his factual 

allegations, while simultaneously complaining about a lack of discovery and continued attacks. 

Plaintiff’s generalized assertions provide no basis to reject the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations. 

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, 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, issued on November 26, 2014, are adopted 

in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is 

DENIED; 

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on April 23, 2014, is 

GRANTED; 

4. Judgment shall be entered in favor only of Defendants Perryman and Harder; and 

5. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Balcagon for 

excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 31, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 77 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2