Holt v. Nicholas et al

Filing 110

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be Denied 79 , 86 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 2/11/13. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections due within 14 Days. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VIRGIL E. HOLT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No. 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-SAB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE
DENIED

R. NICHOLAS, et al.,
(ECF NO. 79, 86)

15

Defendants.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS

16
17
18

Currently pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by

19

Defendants in the above-captioned matter. (ECF No. 79.) The deadline for filing dispositive

20

motions in this case was April 17, 2012. (ECF No. 59.) Defendants filed their motion for

21

summary judgment on June 11, 2012. (ECF No. 79.) Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is

22

untimely and the Court will recommend that it be denied.

23

On August 1, 2012, Defendants filed a request for supplemental briefing for their motion

24

for summary judgment. (ECF No. 86.) Since the Court recommends that Defendants’ motion be

25

denied as untimely, the Court further recommends that Defendants’ request for supplemental

26

briefing be denied as moot.

27

///

28

///
1

1

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2

1.

3

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be DENIED as untimely (ECF No.
79); and
Defendants’ request for supplemental briefing be DENIED as moot (ECF No. 86).

4

2.

5

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

6

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

7

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

8

14 days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and

9

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

10

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

11

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

12

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

13

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Dated:
18

February 11, 2013

_

DEAC_Signature-END:

19

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
i1eed4

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2