Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al
Filing
274
ORDER ADOPTING 272 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS;ORDER GRANTING IN PART Defendants' 246 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDERED that this action now proceeds only on plaintiffs claims brought against defendants Wu, Jimenez, and McGuiness;this case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/30/2018. Enenmoh and F. Jimenez terminated. (21-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 246, 272)
17
18
Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred
20
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On December 15, 2017, defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of
22
Civil Procedure 56, arguing that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his available administrative
23
remedies before filing suit as required. (Doc. No. 246.) On August 31, 2018, the assigned
24
magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion
25
be granted in part after finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with
26
respect to certain claims. (Doc No. 272.) The findings and recommendations were served on the
27
parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after
28
service. (Id. at 24.) On September 13, 2018, plaintiff timely filed his objections. (Doc. No. 273.)
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
2
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes the
3
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
4
In his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates arguments raised in his opposition and his
5
prior motion seeking leave to file a sixth amended complaint. Plaintiff does not argue that he
6
exhausted his administrative remedies prior to the filing of this action as required, nor does he
7
effectively respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims the
8
magistrate judge properly determined to be unexhausted. In short, plaintiff’s objections provide
9
no basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.
10
Accordingly,
11
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 31, 2018 (Doc. No. 272) are
12
13
adopted in full;
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 246) is granted in part and
14
15
denied in part without prejudice;
3. This action now proceeds only on plaintiff’s claims brought against defendants Wu,
16
17
Jimenez, and McGuiness;
4. If defendants intend to file a second motion for summary judgment on the issue of
18
exhaustion of administrative remedies, they are directed to request an evidentiary
19
hearing on that issue within twenty-one days after service of this order; and
20
21
22
5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 30, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?