The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 12, 2011, 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 fourteen days. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 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 August 12, 2011, are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 67) is granted; defendants Stanton, Dolan, Marsh, and Grapentine are dismissed from this action.
3. Defendant Solano County is dismissed from this action.
4. The motion for summary judgment filed by the County defendants (Dkt. No. 65) is denied as moot.
5. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Kadevar and Pilaczynski (Dkt. No. 60), is granted in part and denied in part; plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs is dismissed; plaintiff's remaining "failure to protect" claim shall proceed to trial.
6. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 71) is denied.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...