(PC) Warner v. Cate et al, No. 1:2012cv01146 - Document 120 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 116 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 99 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and ORDER DENYING 108 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay the Proceedings signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/15/2016. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 EARL WARNER, 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 M. CATE, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01146-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY DEFENDNATS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 116) CASE TO REMAIN OPEN 19 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant 20 21 22 23 24 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Walker, Prokop, Fellows, Spralding, and Davis 1. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 16, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 25 26 27 28 (ECF No. 116) to deny Defendants’ March 7, 2016 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 99) and deny Plaintiff’s May 25, 2016 request to stay the proceedings pursuant to 1 Formerly Defendant D. McGaha. 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). (ECF No. 108.) The Magistrate Judge imposed a 2 fourteen day objection deadline. (ECF No. 116.) To date, neither party has filed any 3 objections, and the time for doing so has passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 5 the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 6 entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 7 record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on August 16, 10 2016 (ECF No. 116) in full; 11 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 99) is DENIED; 12 3. Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings pursuant to Rule 56(d) (ECF No. 13 108) is DENIED; and 14 4. The case shall proceed against Defendants Walker, Prokop, Fellows, 15 Spralding, and Davis on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect 16 claim. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ September 15, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.