Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SOLOMON v. NEGRETE, 2:10-cv-2103 WBS AC P. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140924d38 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 August 19, 2014, 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
More

ORDER

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 August 19, 2014, 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. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1

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 19, 2014, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion for a stay of the proceedings, ECF No. 142, is denied;

3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 121, is granted and judgment is entered for defendants.

FootNotes


1. The objections are focused largely on defendant Tate's previously adjudicated motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff continues to complain that the court did not permit him adequate time to respond to that motion, notwithstanding that plaintiff had failed to file an opposition more than six months after the motion was filed, despite having been granted a number of extensions of time. He briefly interposes objections to the pending findings and recommendations as well and seeks more time to do so despite the magistrate judge's explicit caution that there would be no extension to file objections in this matter. Any motion for an extension of time is insufficiently supported and is denied.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer