(PC) Howard v. Gradtillo et al, No. 1:2005cv00906 - Document 48 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 44 ; ORDER Denying Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 36 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/16/11. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Howard v. Gradtillo et al Doc. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE HOWARD, CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00906-AWI-GBC (PC) 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. GRADTILLO, et al., Defendants. 16 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Docs. 36, 44) ______________________________________/ 17 18 Plaintiff Clarence Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on 20 Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed June 22, 2009, against Defendants Bennett, Avila and Jones 21 (“Defendants”) for excessive force on April 3, 2003, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 22 22, First Amd. Comp.; Doc. 27, a Cog Claim Ord.). The matter was referred to a United States 23 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 1, 2010, 24 Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure. (Doc. 36). 26 On January 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 27 which was served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and 28 Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Neither party has submitted objections to the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Findings and Recommendations. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 3 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 4 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 7, 2011, is adopted in full; and 7 2. Defendants motion for judgment of the pleadings, filed September 1, 2010, is 8 9 DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: 0m8i78 March 16, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
