-DAD (PC) Cassells v. Liggett, No. 2:2010cv00775 - Document 67 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 65 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 11/18/11. Defendants' 46 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DAD (PC) Cassells v. Liggett Doc. 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEITH M. CASSELS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-10-0775 MCE DAD P vs. D. LIGGETT, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On September 27, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither 22 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 ORDERED that: 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 27, 2011, are adopted in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 46) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. Defendants’ motion for summary judgement on plaintiff’s excessive use of force claim against defendant Liggett is denied; b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgement on plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Mathews is granted; and c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is denied. Dated: November 18, 2011 12 13 14 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.
