Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01659/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01659-8/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

ESS’NN A. AUBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. MADRUGA and B. HOBBS,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-01659-DAD-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 51)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 28, 42)

ORDER ENTERING PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS 

ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS HOBBS AND 

MADRUGA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE 

FORCE

Plaintiff Ess’nn A. Aubert is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 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.

Case 1:13-cv-01659-DAD-EPG Document 54 Filed 08/25/16 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

On May 17, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that (1) plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and (2) defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 51.) On June 20, 

2016, defendants filed objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 52.) 

Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

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

including the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

proper analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The May 17, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 51) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 28) is denied; 

3. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 42) is denied except with 

respect to plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief;

4. Partial summary judgment is entered in favor of defendants with respect to plaintiff’s 

request for injunctive relief; 

5. This case now proceeds only against defendants Hobbs and Madruga for use of 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and

6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01659-DAD-EPG Document 54 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 2