(PC) McAllister v. Gunja et al, No. 1:2006cv00082 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 43 ), signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/22/2010. (Scrivner, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) McAllister v. Gunja et al Doc. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOHN I MCALLISTER, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00082-OWW-SKO PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS AND v. (Doc. 43) 12 13 PAUL M. SCHULTZ, et al., Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff John I. McAllister (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau 17 of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), which provides a remedy for civil rights violations 18 committed by federal actors. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 13, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which 21 recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be partially granted and partially 22 denied. (Doc. #43.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained 23 notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) 24 days of the date on which the Findings and Recommendations were served. Plaintiff filed objections 25 to the Findings and Recommendations on September 2, 2010. (Doc. #45.) 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court 27 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 28 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Findings and Recommendations recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 2 Schultz be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege facts that plausibly support the conclusion that 3 Schultz deliberately ignored an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s safety. Plaintiff argues that Schultz 4 watched soft balls come over the fence and hit the sidewalk near other inmates and was thus aware 5 that there was a chance that a soft ball could strike another inmate. However, the Court finds that 6 those facts do not plausibly support the conclusion that the risk of walking down the sidewalk was 7 so excessive that it violated Eighth Amendment standards. 8 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 9 1. The July 13, 2010 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; 10 2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Schultz is dismissed based on the defense of 11 12 qualified immunity; 3. 13 14 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied, without prejudice, on all other grounds; 4. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Defendants McCarty, Gordon, Brown, Schultz, and Martin.IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: September 22, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
