The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.
On July 14, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Both parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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 July 14, 2009, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendants' October 9, 2008, motion for summary judgment (Doc. No 142) is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
a. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's failure to protect claims against defendants Baker and Money is denied;
b. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's inadequate medical care claims against defendants Garrison, Money, and Ingwerson is denied;
c. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's equal protection claims is denied as to defendants Kissinger, Peery, Qualls, Ingwerson, and Money, but is granted as to defendants Baker and Garrison;
d. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's supervisory capacity claims against defendants Ingwerson, Money, and Peery is granted;
e. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's state law claims against defendants Kissinger and Peery is denied; and
f. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to their affirmative defense of ...