Filed: Jun. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF NOS. 70 & 76) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Guillermo Cruz Trujillo ("Plaintiff") is a 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 302. On March 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 70). 1 On June 4, 2019, Magistrate Jud
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF NOS. 70 & 76) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Guillermo Cruz Trujillo ("Plaintiff") is a 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 302. On March 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 70). 1 On June 4, 2019, Magistrate Judg..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF NOS. 70 & 76)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Guillermo Cruz Trujillo ("Plaintiff") is a 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 302.
On March 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 70).1 On June 4, 2019, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 76).
The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations. On June 20, 2019, Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 79).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 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 proper analysis.
As to Defendants' request for an evidentiary hearing, it will be denied. The findings and recommendations were based on undisputed facts. Therefore, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute of fact.
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on June 4, 2019, are ADOPTED in full;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED;
3. Defendants' request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED; and
4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
