(PC) Castillo v. Solano County Jail, et al, No. 2:2008cv03080 - Document 77 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 74 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 9/5/11. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss 67 is GRANTED; defendants Stanton, Dolan, Marsh, and Grapentine are DISMISSED from this action. Defend ant Solano County is DISMISSED from this action. The County's motion for summary judgment 65 is DENIED as MOOT. Defendants Kadevar and Pilaczynski's motion for summary judgment 60 is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs is dismissed; plaintiff's remaining failure to protect claim shall proceed to trial. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 71 is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Castillo v. Solano County Jail, et al Doc. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 REYNALDO J. CASTILLO, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al., Respondents. 15 16 No. 2:08-cv-3080 GEB KJN P ORDER / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ 17 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On August 12, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 12, 2011, are adopted in full; 3 4 5 and 2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 67) is granted; defendants Stanton, Dolan, Marsh, and Grapentine are dismissed from this action. 6 3. Defendant Solano County is dismissed from this action. 7 4. The motion for summary judgment filed by the County defendants (Dkt. No. 8 9 65) is denied as moot. 5. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Kadevar and 10 Pilaczynski (Dkt. No. 60), is granted in part and denied in part; plaintiff’s claim for 11 deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs is dismissed; plaintiff’s remaining 12 “failure to protect” claim shall proceed to trial. 13 14 6. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 71) is denied. Dated: September 5, 2011 15 16 17 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
