Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00092/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00092-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ELONZA JESSE TYLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. DAVIS, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00092-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Docs. 72 and 73)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF ’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND

STAY, DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANT

DAVIS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, AND REFERRING MATTER

BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO BE SET

FOR TRIAL ON REMAINING CLAIM

(Docs. 59, 60, and 70)

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Elonza Jesse Tyler,

a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. At this juncture, this action is proceeding

on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed September 15, 2006, against Defendant Smith, a staff

physician, and Defendant Davis, the former Chief Medical Officer, for acting with deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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 November 19, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and for a stay of these proceedings

Case 1:06-cv-00092-SMS Document 74 Filed 01/11/10 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

be denied, Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment be disregarded, and Defendant Davis’s

motion for summary judgment be granted. The parties were given thirty days within which to file

Objections, and none were filed.

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, 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 November 19, 2009, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief and for a stay, filed September 1,

2009, is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, filed April 3, 2009, is

DISREGARDED;

4. Defendant Davis’s motion for summary judgment, filed March 20, 2009, is

GRANTED; and

5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to set for jury trial on Plaintiff’s

remaining claim against Defendant Smith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00092-SMS Document 74 Filed 01/11/10 Page 2 of 2