(PC) Landau v. Voss et al, No. 1:2007cv00815 - Document 75 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 72 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 48 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER DENYING Defendants' Motion for Excessive Force against Defendants Adcock and Forrest; ORDER REFERRING Action to Magistrate Judge for further Scheduling and Proceedings signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/24/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
(PC) Landau v. Voss et al Doc. 75 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SID LANDAU, 9 10 11 12 13 1:07-CV-00815-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. (DOCS. 48, 72) v. W. T. VOSS, et al., / 14 15 Plaintiff Sid Landau is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant 16 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed June 4, 2007, against 17 Defendants Weinstein, Bresler, Kaur, Winchel, Forrest, and Adcock. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On July 14, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which 20 recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied in part and granted in part. The 21 Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that 22 any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Neither party 23 filed a timely Objection to the Findings and Recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 26 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 14, 2010, is adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed September 18, 2009, is GRANTED 4 and judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Weinstein, Bresler, and Kaur for the 5 failure to protect claim, and in favor of Defendants Winchell, Kaur, Adcock, and 6 Forrest for the retaliation claim; 7 3. 8 9 Defendants’ motion is DENIED for the excessive force claim against Defendants Adcock and Forrest; and 4. 10 This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further scheduling and proceedings. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 August 24, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2