Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00878/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00878-31/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

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0878-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

C/O KISSINGER, 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 July 14, 2009, 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 days. Both parties 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

72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 

///

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 193 Filed 09/30/09 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

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 July 14, 2009, are adopted in full; and 

2. Defendants’ October 9, 2008, motion for summary judgment (Doc. No 142) is

granted in part and denied in part as follows:

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

failure to protect claims against defendants Baker and Money is denied;

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

inadequate medical care claims against defendants Garrison, Money, and Ingwerson is denied;

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

equal protection claims is denied as to defendants Kissinger, Peery, Qualls, Ingwerson, and

Money, but is granted as to defendants Baker and Garrison;

d. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s supervisory

capacity claims against defendants Ingwerson, Money, and Peery is granted;

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

state law claims against defendants Kissinger and Peery is denied; and

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

affirmative defense of qualified immunity is denied.

Dated: September 30, 2009

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 193 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 2