-GGH (PC) Armentero v. Sisto et al, No. 2:2008cv02790 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/26/2011 ADOPTING 33 Findings and Recommendations in full, with the exception of the text on pages 6:26 through 7:10. Dft's 27 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This action shall proceed only as to Pltf's claim that he was subjected to a violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment by Dft Willis when he was deprived of his daily psychiatric medication for ten days. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
-GGH (PC) Armentero v. Sisto et al Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LUIS LORENZO ARMENTERO, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. CIV S-08-2790 KJM GGH P Defendant. 11 ORDER vs. S. WILLIS, / 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On July 12, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, 25 the court finds the substantive findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 26 by the proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 12, 2011, are adopted in full, 3 with the exception of the text on pages 6:26 through 7:10; and 4 5 2. Defendant’s November 17, 2010 motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 27) is granted in part and denied in part: 6 7 a) Granted as to plaintiff’s claim of a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation; and 8 b) Denied as to plaintiff’s claim of a violation of the Eighth Amendment. 9 3. This action shall proceed only as to plaintiff’s claim that he was subjected to a 10 violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment by defendant Willis when he was deprived 11 of his daily psychiatric medication for ten days. 12 DATED: September 26, 2011. 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 /arme2790.805 26 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.