(PC) Baker v. Yates, No. 1:2012cv00126 - Document 112 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 110 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 88 Defendant S. Moore's Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/15/2016. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HARVEY CURTIS BAKER, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. S. MOORE, Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND REFERRING CASE BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF Nos. 88, 110) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Harvey Curtis Baker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 1, 2016, the magistrate judge filed a findings and 22 recommendation recommending that Defendant S. Moore’s motion for summary judgment in this 23 matter be denied. (ECF No. 110.) The findings and recommendation was served on the parties with 24 notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. Over thirty (30) days 25 have passed, and no objections have been filed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 28 recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendation, filed on August 1, 2016, is adopted in full; 3 2. Defendant S. Moore’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; 4 3. This matter shall proceed to a jury trial on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant S. Moore for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 5 6 4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ September 15, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 11 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.