Filed: Jul. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2012
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On March 16, 2012, the assigned district judge granted defendants' motion for summary judgment brought on behalf of defendant Nurse Kaur but denied defendants' motion for summary judgment brought on behalf of defendant Dr. Chen. On July 3, 2012, the assigned district judge granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on behalf of def
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On March 16, 2012, the assigned district judge granted defendants' motion for summary judgment brought on behalf of defendant Nurse Kaur but denied defendants' motion for summary judgment brought on behalf of defendant Dr. Chen. On July 3, 2012, the assigned district judge granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on behalf of defe..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 16, 2012, the assigned district judge granted defendants' motion for summary judgment brought on behalf of defendant Nurse Kaur but denied defendants' motion for summary judgment brought on behalf of defendant Dr. Chen. On July 3, 2012, the assigned district judge granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on behalf of defendant Pharmacist Naku and referred this matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings with respect to plaintiff's claims against defendant Dr. Chen.
In due course, the court will issue a further scheduling order setting dates for pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial. However, before issuing the further scheduling order, the court will set a mandatory settlement conference in this case. If available, the court may order that plaintiff participate in the settlement conference by way of video-conferencing. Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), the parties will be directed to inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to be referred to the court's mediation program.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, each party shall inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to wish to be referred to the court's mediation program. If the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall return to the court the consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each party shall file a declaration stating he wishes to be referred to the court's mediation program; and
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send each party the consent form for settlement conferences.
