Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615-27/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACQUES FEARANCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. HOPKINS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:08-cv-00615-LJO-SAB-PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No.100)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On August 13, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 

Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment be granted. Plaintiff was provided an 

opportunity to file objections within thirty days. On September 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the record to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 103 Filed 09/30/15 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

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 13, 

2015, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Busby is dismissed;

3. Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim against all five Defendants is dismissed;

4. Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim against Defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy and 

Beckett relating to Busby’s use of pepper spray is dismissed; and

5. This action proceeds against Defendant Hopkins for use of excessive force and 

against Defendants Beckett, Davis and Duffy for failure to protect Plaintiff from Defendant 

Hopkins’ use of force.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 103 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 2