Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06093/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06093-1/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

JONATHAN DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. GALVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06093-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 28)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 25)

ORDER CONCLUDING ENTIRE ACTION

ORDER THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED

Plaintiff, Jonathan Davis (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 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 November 30, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations that recommended Defendants’ unopposed motion

to dismiss be granted. The Findings and Recommendations were

served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that

any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be

filed within thirty (30) days. To date, the parties have not

Case 1:03-cv-06093-AWI -DLB Document 30 Filed 02/15/06 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

filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations. However, on December 30, 2005, Plaintiff filed

a response to the motion for summary judgment. The court will

construe this response as objections.

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. 

Plaintiff’s response does not provide a reason to not adopt

the Findings and Recommendations. In his response, as he did in

his complaint, Plaintiff states that the only reason he “came

off” the wall and turned around during the search was because

C.O. Wilcox hit him in the groin. The allegations concerning

C.O. Wilcox were addressed by the Magistrate Judge, and the court

agrees with Plaintiff that whether C.O. Wilcox used unlawful

force is a disputed issue of fact. However, C.O. Wilcox has

never been served in this action had has not moved for summary

judgment. The facts about what the remaining Defendants did are

undisputed. There are no facts showing that Defendant Langham

knew why Plaintiff “came off” the wall. While the facts leading

up to Plaintiff turning around and coming off the wall are

disputed, under the circumstances, Defendant Langham’s use of the

baton to strike Plaintiff was not repugnant to the conscience of

mankind because of the threat Plaintiff may have posed to

Defendant Langham. 

//

Case 1:03-cv-06093-AWI -DLB Document 30 Filed 02/15/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 30,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed March

24, 2005, is GRANTED; 

3. This action is CONCLUDED in its entirety; and,

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment

for Defendants and against Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06093-AWI -DLB Document 30 Filed 02/15/06 Page 3 of 3