Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05254/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05254-4/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

ALFONZO TOLBERT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. PEELER, 

Defendant. 

 /

1:03-cv-05254-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 42)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 35)

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO BE SET FOR

TRIAL

Plaintiff Alfonzo Tolbert (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action 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 72-302.

On May 26, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. 

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 47 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 3
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 June 26, 2006, defendant Peeler (“defendant”) filed an

objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,

and on July 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s

objection.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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. 

In the objections, defendant contends that the Medical

Report created after the altercation shows plaintiff suffered no

injury. However, plaintiff submitted evidence in the form of a

verified amended complaint and declaration in which Plaintiff

states defendant slammed his head into a brick wall, twisted

plaintiff’s arm, threw him to the floor, and repeatedly kicked

plaintiff. Plaintiff states he sustained bruises and

experienced pain in his face and body. In light of the evidence

found in plaintiff’s verified amended complaint and plaintiff’s

declaration, there is a disputed issue of fact regarding the

extent of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s failure to formally

dispute Defendants’ proposed undisputed facts does not make these

facts undisputed in light of Plaintiff’s submitted evidence to

the contrary. As such, summary judgment is not appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 26, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed December

14, 2005, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 47 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

follows:

a. Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication on

plaintiff’s excessive force claim against him is

DENIED; and,

b. Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication on

plaintiff’s retaliation claim against him based on

the cell searches on February 19, 2001, and March

5, 2001, is GRANTED; and

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to

be set for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 47 Filed 08/28/06 Page 3 of 3