(PC) Walker v. Moore, No. 1:2013cv02102 - Document 46 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 44 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 34 Defendant Moore's Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/8/2016. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRYL WALKER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS D. MOORE, (Doc. No. 44) 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17 (Doc. No. 34) 18 19 Plaintiff Darryl Walker is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 20 21 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate 22 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 29, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 24 recommendation recommending that defendant Moore’s motion for summary judgment be 25 denied. (Doc. No. 44.) On January 19, 2016, defendant Moore filed objections to those findings 26 and recommendations. (ECF No. 45.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 27 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having 28 ///// 1 1 carefully reviewed the entire file, including defendant Moore’s objections thereto, the court finds 2 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper legal analysis. Specifically, the court is not persuaded by defendant’s characterization in his objections of 3 4 plaintiff’s allegations or careful parsing of the undisputed facts. As the magistrate judge 5 recounted in the findings and recommendations, plaintiff came forward with evidence at summary 6 judgment with evidence establishing a disputed issue of material fact as to defendant’s Moore’s 7 actions involving the use of force against plaintiff which specifically included evidence of force 8 directed at plaintiff’s wrists. (Doc No. 44 at 6) (citing Doc. No. 35 at 5). Likewise, the court 9 rejects defendant’s objections based on what he argues was the de minimis nature of plaintiff’s 10 injuries. The magistrate judge appropriately focused the inquiry on whether there was a disputed 11 issue of material fact as to whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 12 discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. (Doc No. 44 at 6-7) (citing Wilkins v. 13 Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010)). 14 Accordingly, 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the assigned magistrate judge on 16 December 29, 2015, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Defendant Moore’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 34), filed on June 29, 17 18 2015, is DENIED; and 19 20 21 3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.