(PC) Glass v. Scribner, et al, No. 1:2004cv05953 - Document 155 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 154 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 09/23/2009. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Glass v. Scribner, et al Doc. 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DONALD GLASS, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05953 AWI DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., 13 Defendants. (Doc. 394, #141, #144, & #154) 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Donald Glass, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 19 On August 19, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 20 which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the 21 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The parties have not filed timely 22 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 24 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 25 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 19, 2009, is adopted in full; 28 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed December 27, 2006, is GRANTED 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 2 a. 3 Defendant Tracy is granted summary judgment on the excessive force claim against him arising from the April 17, 2002 cell extraction; 4 b. 5 Defendants are granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim concerning the April 17, 2002 cell extraction; 6 c. 7 Defendant Lawton is granted summary judgment on the excessive force claim against him arising from the May 5, 2002 use of force incident; 8 d. 9 Defendants are granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s denial of access to the courts claim; 10 e. Defendants are granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim 11 concerning his initial placement on strip cell status from April 18, 2002 to 12 April 28, 2002, and his continued placement from May 13, 2002 to May 24, 13 2002; 14 f. 15 Defendants are granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Defendants in their official capacities; 16 g. The remainder of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied; 17 3. This matter shall be set for trial; and 18 4. The pending motions concerning additional time to file briefs regarding the motion 19 for summary judgment are DENIED as moot (#141 & #144). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 0m8i78 September 23, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.