Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018-46/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

KAVIN M. RHODES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. ROBINSON, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:02-cv-05018 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 311]

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 296]

Plaintiff Kavin M. Rhodes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 4, 2002. 

On September 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and 

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On November 10, 

2014, Plaintiff filed objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record 

and by proper analysis.

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 317 Filed 12/29/14 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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 2, 2014, are ADOPTED in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART, as follows:

a) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Counts One and Two against 

Defendants Pazo, Tidwell, and Wenciker is DENIED;

b) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Count Three against Defendant 

Lopez is GRANTED;

c) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count Six against Defendant 

Chapman is GRANTED, and Defendant Chapman is DISMISSED from this action;

d) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count Eight is GRANTED against 

Defendant Lopez and DENIED against Defendant Todd;

e) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count Ten against Defendants 

Lopez, Garza, and Matzen is DENIED; and

f) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count Eleven against Defendant 

Lopez is DENIED.

3. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 317 Filed 12/29/14 Page 2 of 2