(PC) McMaster v. Spearman et al, No. 1:2010cv01407 - Document 118 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING Supplemental 116 Findings and Recommendations, and GRANTING Defendants Garcia and Carlson's Motion for Summary Adjudication on Eighth Amendment Claim, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/23/15. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DANA MCMASTER, Plaintiff, 11 12 Case No. 1:10-cv-01407-AWI-SKO (PC) ORDER ADOPTING SUPPLEMETNAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS GARCIA AND CARLSON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM v. 13 M. E. SPEARMAN, et al., 14 Defendants. (Docs. 65 and 116) 15 _____________________________________/ 16 17 Plaintiff Dana McMaster, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 6, 2010. This action is 19 currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed January 3, 2013, against 20 Defendants Carlson, Garcia, Sedwick, Espitia, and Pease for failing to protect him, in violation of 21 the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendant Carlson for retaliation, in violation of the First 22 Amendment. The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred between March 7, 23 2009, and April 20, 2009, at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California. 24 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 25 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a 26 Supplemental Findings and Recommendations, which was served on the parties and contained 27 28 1 notice to the parties that any objections were to be filed within twenty days.1 No objections were 2 filed. Local Rule 304(b). 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 4 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 5 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. 8 The Supplemental Findings and Recommendations, filed on November 23, 2015, is adopted in full; and 9 2. 10 Defendants Garcia and Carlson’s Motion for Summary Adjudication on the Eighth Amendment claim against them is GRANTED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: December 23, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On November 13, 2014, Defendant Garcia and Carlson’s Motion for Summary Adjudication on the Eighth Amendment claim against them was continued pending completion of further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). (Docs. 97, 101.) 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.