(PC) King v. Calistro, No. 1:2015cv00698 - Document 55 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 53 Findings and Recommendations, Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Calistro's 34 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/30/17. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
(PC) King v. Calistro Doc. 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALTON KING, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. CALISTRO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-00698-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CALISTRO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF Nos. 34, 53] Plaintiff Alton King is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 21 Recommendations recommending that Defendant Calistro’s motion for summary judgment be granted 22 as to Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference and denied as to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation. The 23 Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were 24 to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on October 17, 2017. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 27 the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on September 14, 2017, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendant Calistro’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff’s claim for 4 5 6 deliberate indifference and denied as to Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation; and 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for trial scheduling on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 30, 2017 10 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2