Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815-19/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

SID LANDAU,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. T. VOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

AMENDED 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 judgement be denied in part and granted in part.

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

that any objection 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.

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 76 Filed 09/02/10 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed September 18, 2009, is

GRANTED 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: September 1, 2010 

9h0d30 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 76 Filed 09/02/10 Page 2 of 2