(PC) Puckett v. Vogel et al, No. 1:2013cv00525 - Document 92 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 83 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that both Plaintiff's and Defendant Zamora's 69 76 Motions for Summary Judgment be Denied signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/11/2016. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 12 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO (PC) DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,, Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT ZAMORA’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED v. VOGEL, et al., Defendants. (Docs. 69, 76, 83) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff, Durrell Anthony Puckett, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 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. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action on claims against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, and Johnson for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, Johnson, Dean, Bolander, Abadia, Lockhart, Zamora, Sisneros, Campos, and Callow for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, and Johnson for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff and Defendant Zamora filed motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 69, 76.) On 24 January 26, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations to deny both 25 motions. (Doc. 83.) The Findings and Recommendations was served on that same date and 26 provided thirty days for the parties to file objections. (Id.) Despite lapse of more than the 27 allowed time, no objections were filed. 28 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 3 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on January 26, 2016 (Doc. 83), is 6 7 8 9 10 adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 69), filed on July 23, 2015, is DENIED; 3. Defendant Zamora’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 76), filed on September 11, 2015, is DENIED; and 11 4. It is noted that this action has been scheduled for a settlement conference on May 5, 12 2016. (Doc. 91.) If the settlement conference is not successful, this action will 13 14 thereafter be set for trial. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: March 11, 2016 16 SENIOR 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.