(PC) Jordan v. Chapnick et al, No. 1:2007cv00202 - Document 84 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings And Recommendations And Granting In Part And Denying In Part Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 46 & 83 ), Court Will Issue Seperate Order Setting Case For Trial, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/23/2011. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Jordan v. Chapnick et al Doc. 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAMES JORDAN, 10 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-202-OWW-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT R. CHAPNICK, 13 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 46 & 83) / 14 COURT WILL ISSUE SEPARATE ORDER SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL 15 16 Plaintiff James Jordan, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has 17 filed this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 18 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 15, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation 20 recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in 21 part. (ECF No. 83.) The parties were ordered to file any objections no later than March 1, 2011. 22 To date, neither party has filed objections. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 305, this Court 24 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 25 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed February 15, 2011, is adopted in full; 3 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims 4 arising out of Defendant Chapnick’s supervisory authority and/or role as Chief 5 Medical Officer; 6 3. 7 8 9 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim involving Defendant’s delayed response to Plaintiff’s second level appeal; and 4. This case will be set for trial on whether Defendant Chapnick’s delayed response to Plaintiff’s second level appeal violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. The Court will issue a separate order with further instructions for the parties as to the trial of this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: March 23, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 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.