Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06290/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06290-17/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

DAVID MAURICE GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN A.K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06290-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 87)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 55)

Plaintiff David Maurice Gomez (“plaintiff”) is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se 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 December 15, 2005, 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 (30)

days. On December 30, 2005, plaintiff filed an objection to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-06290-DLB Document 90 Filed 02/17/06 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

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 15,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed July 19,

2005, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect

claim against defendants Scribner, Rocha, and

Costello is GRANTED;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect

claim against defendants Saddi, Bailey, and German

is DENIED; and 

c. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim

against defendants Saddi, Bailey, and German is

GRANTED; and

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

further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06290-DLB Document 90 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2