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.

Ferdinand Reynolds v. K. Gerstel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 29, 2011

FERDINAND REYNOLDS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
K. GERSTEL, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 58) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 42) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PARTY DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 52)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Ferdinand Reynolds ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 16, 2009. (Doc. 1). 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 September 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 42). Defendant filed the opposition on September 23, 2010. (Doc. 44). Plaintiff filed the reply on October 4, 2010. (Doc. 44). On February 28, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 52). On March 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition and declaration. (Docs. 53, 54). On March 15, 2011, Defendant filed a reply. (Doc. 55).

On July 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (Doc. 58). Plaintiff filed objections on August 15, 2011. (Doc. 19). 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 on July 7, 2011, is adopted in full (Doc. 58);

2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 42), filed September 7, 2010, is DENIED; and

3. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 52), filed February 28, 2011, is GRANTED IN PART to the issue of renewal of Plaintiff's pain prescription and DENIED IN PART to the issue of deliberate indifference involving the extraction of Plaintiff's tooth on August 18, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

0m8i78

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20110929

© 1992-2011 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.