Thomas v. Kuo, 1:16-cv-00524-DAD-EPG. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190711840
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 97) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff, Johnny C. Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 June 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommend
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 97) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff, Johnny C. Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 June 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommenda..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. No. 97)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Johnny C. Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 June 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and supplemental motion for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 68, 71) be denied, and that defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70) also be denied. (Doc. No. 97.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were due within twenty-one (21) days. (Id. at 22.) Neither party has filed any objections and the time to do so has now passed.
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 proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations entered on June 5, 2019 (Doc. No. 97) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and supplemental motion for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 68, 71) are denied;
3. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70) is denied; and
4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
