Reyes v. Flores, 1:16-cv-00586-DAD-JLT. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180921944
Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANT, AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (Doc. Nos. 35, 48) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 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 16, 2018, the assig
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANT, AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (Doc. Nos. 35, 48) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 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 16, 2018, the assign..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANT, AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
(Doc. Nos. 35, 48)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 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 16, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment be denied, that the remaining Doe defendant be dismissed from this action due to lack of service, and that the parties be ordered to participate in a settlement conference and to advise the court whether they requested court supervision of that settlement conference. (Doc. No. 48.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. Neither party has filed objections, and the time in which to do so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued August 16, 2018 (Doc. No. 48) are adopted in full;
2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment filed on December 20, 2017 (Doc. No. 35) is denied;
3. Defendant John Doe, RN is dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action as to that defendant; and
4. The parties shall participate in a settlement conference, and are direct to file statements within fourteen (14) days of service of this order indicating whether they desire the setting of a court supervised settlement conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
