Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE K. COLBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 52, 79)

Plaintiff George K. Colbert is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed under 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. On February 1, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed 

findings and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

(Doc. No. 52) be granted in part and denied in part. Those findings and recommendations were 

served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty 

days. No objections were filed by either party. 

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 legal analysis.

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 80 Filed 03/10/16 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, 

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 79), filed on February 1, 2016, are

ADOPTED IN FULL in full; and

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 52) is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part as follows:

a. The Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Farnsworth is DISMISSED for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies;

b. The Eight Amendment claim against defendant Emard for use of excessive 

force by pushing plaintiff on the stairs on September 6, 2008 is DISMISSED for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies;

c. The motion for summary adjudication of the excessive force and retaliation 

claims against defendants Ramirez and Flores and failure to protect claim against 

defendant Farnsworth for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is DENIED;

d. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of the excessive force and failure 

to protect claims is DENIED; and

e. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of the retaliation claim is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 80 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 2