Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINCY SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CABRERA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

ON THE PLEADINGS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PARTIES’ 

MOTIONS TO STRIKE 

(Docs. 18, 27, 29, 30, and 41)

Plaintiff Quincy Sims (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 21, 2012. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendant M. Cabrera (“Defendant”) for failing to 

protect Plaintiff from the threat of harm by gang members or affiliates while he was at Kern 

Valley State Prison, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

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

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings 

and Recommendations which contained notice to the parties that Objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. No Objections were filed. 

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

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on December 8, 2014, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to exhaust is 

DENIED, without prejudice to renewal under Rule 56 (doc. 18);

3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, without prejudice, as 

procedurally deficient (doc. 27);

4. Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s “surreply” is DENIED (doc. 29); and

5. Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED as moot (doc. 

30).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 2