(PC) Childs v. State of California et al, No. 2:2013cv00670 - Document 102 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/22/2016 ADOPTING IN FULL 97 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING Defendants' 78 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Nelson and otherwise DENIED; and DENYING Plaintiff's 93 Motion for Court Intervention. (Jackson, T)

Download PDF
(PC) Childs v. State of California et al Doc. 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 E. CHILDS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-0670-TLN-EFB P v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 3, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 97. The court has reviewed the file and the objections and finds the findings and 24 25 recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 3, 2016, (ECF No. 97), are adopted in 27 28 full; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 2. Defendants’ October 13, 2015 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 78) is granted as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Nelson and otherwise denied; and 3. Plaintiff’s May 5, 2016 motion for court intervention (ECF No. 93) is denied. 4 5 Dated: December 22, 2016 6 7 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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.