Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01402-8/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff John Anthony Vella is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was

served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Defendants filed objections on August 24, 

2015. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 on July 27, 2015, is adopted in full; and

2. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant Clark on Plaintiff’s claim that 

JOHN ANTHONY VELLA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

EDGAR CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS CLARK 

AND GRAY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT 

PAIK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF Nos. 35, 39, 52]

Case 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB Document 54 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 2
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

he delayed issuance of crutches;

3. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant Clark on Plaintiff’s claim that 

he delayed treatment or emergency transport for the fall and re-injury of his foot; 

4. Summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Clark and Gray 

refused to provide a dosage of Morphine and refused to act on Plaintiff’s call of “man down”;

5. Summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Clark delayed in 

providing a follow-up appointment with Dr. Paik;

6. Summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Clark failed to 

treat Plaintiff’s foot infection following removal of the foot cast; 

7. Defendant Gray is DENIED qualified immunity; and

8. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant Dr. Paik. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB Document 54 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 2