Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815-18/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

SID LANDAU,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. T. VOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-CV-00815-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(DOCS. 48, 72)

Plaintiff Sid Landau is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed June 4, 2007, against

Defendants Weinstein, Bresler, Kaur, Winchel, Forrest, and Adcock. 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 July 14, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

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

Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that

anyobjection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Neither party

filed a timely Objection to the Findings and Recommendations.

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

1

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 75 Filed 08/25/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 14, 2010, is adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion forsummaryjudgment, filed September 18, 2009, is GRANTED

and judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Weinstein, Bresler, and Kaur for the

failure to protect claim, and in favor of Defendants Winchell, Kaur, Adcock, and

Forrest for the retaliation claim; 

3. Defendants’ motion is DENIED for the excessive force claim against Defendants

Adcock and Forrest; and

4. This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further scheduling and

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 24, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 75 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2