(PC)Aubert v. Madruga et al, No. 1:2013cv01659 - Document 54 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 51 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTING In Part and DENYING In Part Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 28 and 42 ; ORDER Entering Partial Summary J udgment In Favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's Claim for Injunctive Relief; ORDER for this case to proceed against Defendants Hobbs and Madruga for use of excessive force; Case referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for futher proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/24/16. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESS’NN A. AUBERT, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 No. 1:13-cv-01659-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS E. MADRUGA and B. HOBBS, (Doc. No. 51) Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 28, 42) ORDER ENTERING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS HOBBS AND MADRUGA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE 25 26 Plaintiff Ess’nn A. Aubert is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 27 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 28 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 1 1 On May 17, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 2 recommending that (1) plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and (2) defendants’ 3 motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 51.) On June 20, 4 2016, defendants filed objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 52.) 5 Plaintiff has not filed any objections. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 7 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 8 including the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 9 proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The May 17, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 51) are adopted in full; 12 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 28) is denied; 13 3. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 42) is denied except with respect to plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief; 14 15 4. Partial summary judgment is entered in favor of defendants with respect to plaintiff’s 16 request for injunctive relief; 17 5. This case now proceeds only against defendants Hobbs and Madruga for use of 18 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 19 20 21 6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 24, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.