Howard v. Gradtillo et al

Filing 104

ORDER ADOPTING 99 Findings and Recommendations, DENYING Defendants' 79 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/1/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CLARENCE HOWARD,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00906-AWI-SAB PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.
GRADTILLO, et al.,

13

Defendants.

(ECF Nos. 79 & 99)
/

14
15

Plaintiff Clarence Howard (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 13, 2005. The matter

17

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

18

Rule 302.

19

On March 16, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

20

(ECF No. 79.) On May 8, 2012, Plaintiff submitted an opposition and a memorandum in support

21

of the opposition. (ECF Nos. 81 & 82.) On May 11, 2012, Defendants submitted a reply. (ECF

22

No. 84.) On August 2, 2012, the Court issued an order permitting Plaintiff opportunity to withdraw

23

his opposition and file an amended opposition in light of Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.

24

2012). (ECF No. 87.) Plaintiff filed an amended opposition on October 3, 2012. (ECF No. 91.)

25

Defendants submitted a reply on October 10, 2012. (ECF No. 92.) On March 18, 2013, the

26

Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations recommending denying Defendants’

27

motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 99.) Neither party objected to the findings and

28

recommendations.
1

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case.

2

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be

3

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

5

1.

The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on March 18, 2013, in full;

6

2.

The motion for summary judgment is denied; and

7

3.

This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:
0m8i78

May 1, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2