Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00381/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00381-31/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

GARY ANDRE LACY,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

H. TYSON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:07-cv-00381-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 160.)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 121.)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS PEACOCK AND 

TYSON FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT 

PLAINTIFF, AND AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS T. REYNA, CORREA, 

BREMNAR, AND BROOKWALTER FOR 

USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE

Gary Andre Lacy (APlaintiff@) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with 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 302. 

Case 1:07-cv-00381-LJO-EPG Document 161 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 3
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

On January 6, 2016, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 

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

(ECF No. 160.) The parties were granted thirty days in which to file objections to the findings 

and recommendations. (Id.) The thirty day time period has passed, and no objections have 

been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 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 proper 

analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 

6, 2016, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment, filed on June 29, 2012, is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

3. Defendants are GRANTED summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s excessive force 

claims against Defendant Peacock, and Plaintiff’s medical claims against 

Defendants Bremnar, Brookwalter, Peacock, Tyson, Aspeitia-Fleming, and 

Patel;

4. Defendants are DENIED summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims that 

Defendants Peacock and Tyson failed to protect him, and Plaintiff’s excessive 

force claims against Defendants T. Reyna, Correa, Bremnar, and Brookwalter; 

5. Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity, for Plaintiff’s claims at issue 

against them, is DENIED;

6. This case now proceeds against Defendants Peacock and Tyson for failure to 

protect Plaintiff, and against Defendants T. Reyna, Correa, Bremnar, and 

Brookwalter for use of excessive force; 

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00381-LJO-EPG Document 161 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

7. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants 

Aspeitia-Fleming and Patel, and to reflect their termination from this case on the 

docket; and

8. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00381-LJO-EPG Document 161 Filed 02/23/16 Page 3 of 3