(PC) Bryant v. Gallagher et al, No. 1:2011cv00446 - Document 228 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 226 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 176 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 214 Motion for Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/21/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. GALLAGHER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:11-cv-00446-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 226) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 176) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 214) 19 20 Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 18, 2016, the magistrate 22 judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary 23 judgment in this matter be denied. (ECF No. 226.) The Findings and Recommendations were served 24 on the parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty (20) days of service. Over 25 thirty (30) days have passed, and no objections were filed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 28 Recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 4 5 6 The Findings and Recommendations dated February 18, 2016, (ECF No. 226), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 176), and motion for an order granting summary judgment, (ECF No. 214), are DENIED; and 3. This matter shall proceed to a jury trial on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Romero 7 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against 8 Defendants Gallagher and Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and 9 failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill March 21, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.