Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. California Dep't of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 22, 2009

JACK ALLEN WILSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 139, 148, and 159)

Plaintiff Jack Allen Wilson ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On November 20, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On December 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Objection, and on December 22, 2008, Defendants filed an Objection.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 20, 2008, is adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, filed February 6, 2007, is DENIED in its entirety; and

3. Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, filed May 7, 2007, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

A. As to Plaintiff's claim that the procedure and/or policy, and implementation thereof to serve the Heart Healthy diet with education on self-abstention for diabetics was in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs -- GRANTED;

B. As to Plaintiff's claim that the procedure and/or policy, and implementation thereof under which he allegedly did not receive a sufficient number of finger-sticks to adequately monitor and control his blood sugar in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs -- DENIED;

C. As to Plaintiff's claim that the procedure and/or policy, and implementation thereof under which he allegedly did not receive sufficient out of cell exercise in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs -- DENIED;

D. As to Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Bendon and Yee in their supervisorial capacities and for the rulings on Plaintiff's medical grievances/appeals in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs -- DENIED;

E. As to Plaintiff's claims under California law that the actions of the defendants amounted to professional negligence/medical malpractice -- DENIED;

F. As to Plaintiff's claims under California law that the actions of the defendants amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress -- DENIED; and

G. As to Defendants' claims that they are entitled to qualified immunity -DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090122

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.