WASHINGTON v. GUSTAFSON

No. 2:14-cv-00628-TLN-DB P.

JESSE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW GUSTAFSON, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jesse Washington, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

A. Gustafson, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

S. Walker, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

C. Blomquist, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

M. Aquilero, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.

M. Kesler, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin , Office of the Attorney General.


ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendant Miranda1 was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by determining that Plaintiff no longer qualified for several medical accommodations for which Plaintiff was previously approved at a different institution. 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 March 6, 2017, 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. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 59.)

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 March 6, 2017 (ECF No. 52), are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Miranda's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29) is granted; and

3. Summary judgment is granted in full on behalf of Defendant Miranda.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff's complaint and the docket sheet refer to this Defendant as "Rimanda." (See ECF No. 1.) However, this Defendant's own motion refers to him as "Miranda." (See ECF No. 29.) Accordingly, the Court shall refer to him as Defendant Miranda in this Order.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases