(PC) Vella v. Clark, et al., No. 1:2012cv01402 - Document 54 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 52 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 35 Defendants Clark and Gray's Motion for Summary Judgment; and ORDER GRANTING 39 Defendant Paik's Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/28/2015. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN ANTHONY VELLA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. EDGAR CLARK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Case No.: 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS CLARK AND GRAY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT PAIK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF Nos. 35, 39, 52] Plaintiff John Anthony Vella is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On July 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 20 served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that objections to the Findings and 21 Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Defendants filed objections on August 24, 22 2015. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 24 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 25 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on July 27, 2015, is adopted in full; and 28 2. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant Clark on Plaintiff’s claim that 1 1 he delayed issuance of crutches; 2 3. 3 he delayed treatment or emergency transport for the fall and re-injury of his foot; 4 4. 5 refused to provide a dosage of Morphine and refused to act on Plaintiff’s call of “man down”; 6 5. 7 providing a follow-up appointment with Dr. Paik; 8 6. 9 treat Plaintiff’s foot infection following removal of the foot cast; Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant Clark on Plaintiff’s claim that Summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Clark and Gray Summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Clark delayed in Summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Clark failed to 10 7. Defendant Gray is DENIED qualified immunity; and 11 8. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant Dr. Paik. 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill September 28, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.