Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02102/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02102-10/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MOORE,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 44)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. No. 34)

Plaintiff Darryl Walker is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 

brought 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 302.

On December 29, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendation recommending that defendant Moore’s motion for summary judgment be 

denied. (Doc. No. 44.) On January 19, 2016, defendant Moore filed objections to those findings 

and recommendations. (ECF No. 45.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having 

/////

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 46 Filed 03/09/16 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

carefully reviewed the entire file, including defendant Moore’s objections thereto, the court finds 

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper legal analysis. 

Specifically, the court is not persuaded by defendant’s characterization in his objections of 

plaintiff’s allegations or careful parsing of the undisputed facts. As the magistrate judge 

recounted in the findings and recommendations, plaintiff came forward with evidence at summary 

judgment with evidence establishing a disputed issue of material fact as to defendant’s Moore’s 

actions involving the use of force against plaintiff which specifically included evidence of force 

directed at plaintiff’s wrists. (Doc No. 44 at 6) (citing Doc. No. 35 at 5). Likewise, the court 

rejects defendant’s objections based on what he argues was the de minimis nature of plaintiff’s 

injuries. The magistrate judge appropriately focused the inquiry on whether there was a disputed 

issue of material fact as to whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 

discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. (Doc No. 44 at 6-7) (citing Wilkins v. 

Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010)). 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the assigned magistrate judge on 

December 29, 2015, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant Moore’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 34), filed on June 29, 

2015, is DENIED; and

3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 46 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 2