Alvarez v. Silva, 1:19-cv-00003-DAD-SAB (PC). (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200115d39
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2020
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 31) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Joey Alvarez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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 November 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommendin
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 31) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Joey Alvarez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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 November 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. No. 31)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Joey Alvarez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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 November 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 30) filed on October 30, 2019 be denied. (Doc. No. 31.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff's motion "is wholly defective in that [he] . . . simply filed a single page requesting summary judgment" and that he therefore did not carry his burden, as the party moving for summary judgment. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.
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.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 5, 2019 (Doc. No. 31) are adopted; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed on October 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 30) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
