Slama v. City of Madera, et al

Filing 74

ORDER ADOPTING 73 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER GRANTING 63 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER RE-OPENING CASE; ORDER VACATING 56 and 59 Orders on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment; ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF to File a Response to Defendants' Two Motions (Docs. 53 and 57 ) within sixty (60) Days, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/11/2011. (Jessen, A)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
3
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF MADERA, MADERA
)
POLICE DEPT., OFFICER CHAVEZ, )
OFFICER SHEKIANIAN, and DOES
)
1 through 100,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
ANTHONY SLAMA,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

1:08-cv-810 AWI SKO
ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION,
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, and
ORDER VACATING PRIOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ORDERS
(Doc. Nos. 56, 59, 63, 73)

13
14
This case arose from an encounter between Plaintiff and members of the City of Madera
15
Police Department. On April 16, 2010, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on
16
all claims save one. See Doc. No. 56. On May 20, 2010, after having authorized a second
17
summary judgment, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff’s last
18
claim. See Doc. No. 59. The case closed on May 20, 2010.
19
On April 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pro se motion requesting relief under Rule 60.
20
Plaintiff also requested that he represent himself, and that his attorney of record, Steve Geringer,
21
be relieved. On July 21, 2011, the Court referred the matters to Magistrate Judge Shiela K.
22
Oberto pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 for the entry for Findings and
23

Recommendations.1

24
On July 27, 2011, the Magistrate Judge relieved attorney Geringer and substituted
25
Plaintiff to represent himself.
26
27
1

28

The referral order indicated that no Finding and Recommendation was needed with respect the issue of
Plaintiff’s representation in this case.

1

On August 22, 2011, the Magistrate Judge Issued a Findings and Recommendation. The

2

Magistrate Judge found that attorney Geringer had essentially abandoned his client and that

3

reconsideration should be granted, the orders on summary judgment be set aside, and Plaintiff be

4

given sixty (60) days to file oppositions to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The

5

Findings and Recommendation stated that objections were due within fifteen (15) days of

6

service.

7
8

Fifteen days have passed, and no party has filed any objections to the Findings and
Recommendation.

9

Having fully reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the analysis of the Findings and

10

Recommendation, and the papers on file as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court agrees with

11

the Findings and Recommendation. The Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be

12

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

13
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

The August 22, 2011, Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL;

16

2.

Plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;

17

3.

The Clerk shall RE-OPEN this case;

18

4.

The Court’s orders on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 56 & 59)

19
20

are VACATED;
5.

Nos. 53 & 57) with sixty (60) days of service of this order;2 and

21
22
23

Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendants’ two motions for summary judgment (Doc.

6.

Defendants shall file a reply to Defendants’ opposition within ten (10) days of the service
of the opposition.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated:
0m8i78

September 11, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2

Plaintiff’s opposition shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Eastern District of
California Local Rule 260.

2