(PC) Landau v. Voss et al, No. 1:2007cv00815 - Document 76 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING 72 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING In Part and Denying In Part 48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT: GRANTING in favor of Defendants Weinstein, Bresler, and Kaur for the failure to protect claim, and in favor of Def endants Winchell, Kaur, Adcock, and Forrest for the retaliation claim AND DENYING Defendants' Motion for Excessive Force claim against Defendants Adcock and Forrest; REFERRING Action to Magistrate Judge for further Scheduling and Proceedings signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/1/2010. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Landau v. Voss et al Doc. 76 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SID LANDAU, 9 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. 10 11 1:07-CV-00815-AWI-DLB PC (DOCS. 48, 72) v. W. T. VOSS, et al., 12 13 / 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 judgement be denied in part and granted in part. 21 The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties 22 that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Neither 23 party 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 4 GRANTED in favor of Defendants Weinstein, Bresler, and Kaur for the failure to 5 protect claim, and in favor of Defendants Winchell, Kaur, Adcock, and Forrest for 6 the retaliation claim; 7 3. 8 Adcock and Forrest; and 9 4. 10 11 12 13 Defendants’ motion is DENIED for the excessive force claim against Defendants This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further scheduling and proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9h0d30 September 1, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
