Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00187-15/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES T. FREELAND,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0187 LKK DAD P

vs.

SACRAMENTO CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief 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 General Order No. 262.

On January 29, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 

Defendants Perez and Renzelman have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

proper analysis.

Case 2:06-cv-00187-DAD Document 188 Filed 03/16/10 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 29, 2010 are adopted in full;

2. Defendants Perez and Renzelman’s July 17, 2009 motion for summary

judgment (Doc. No. 135) is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s

Fourth Amendment excessive use of force claims is denied;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s

Fourth Amendment failure to protect or failure to intercede claims is

denied;

c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s

Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claims is granted; and

d. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to their

affirmative defense of qualified immunity from plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment excessive use of force claims and Fourth Amendment failure

to protect or failure to intercede claims is denied.

DATED: March 15, 2010.

Case 2:06-cv-00187-DAD Document 188 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2