Aubert v. Hector
Filing
39
ORDER ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/19/2013. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
7
8
ESS ‘NN AUBERT,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
Case No. 1:10 cv 00565 LJO GSA PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 37)
vs.
H. ROBLES,
Defendant.
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28
19
20
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
21
On November 15, 2013, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that
22
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied. The parties were provided an opportunity
23
to file objections within thirty days. No objections to the findings and recommendations have
24
been filed.
25
26
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this
27
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
28
1
1
2
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
3
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on November 15,
4
5
2013, are adopted in full.
6
2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
7
3. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
December 19, 2013
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?