Meadows v. Reeves, et al.

Filing 84

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendation 83 ; and Denying Motion for Summary Judgment 74 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/7/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHANN MEADOWS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

REEVES, M.D.,

15

No. 1:11-cv-00257-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants.

(Doc. Nos. 74, 83)

16
17

Plaintiff, Michann Meadows, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing her

19

original complaint in this court on February 14, 2011. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a

20

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On

21

October 1, 2012, plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint, now the operative complaint,

22

claiming that defendant Reeves sexually assaulted her during a gynecological examination on

23

July 22, 2009, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 28.)

24

On May 12, 2015, defendant Reeves filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that

25

rather than assaulting plaintiff, he was merely attempting to perform an endometrial biopsy.

26

(Doc. No. 74.) On December 30, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and

27

Recommendations recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied

28

because the evidence presented by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary
1

1

judgment, including plaintiff’s own declaration, established that a triable issue of material fact

2

exists. (Doc. No. 83.) Those Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and

3

contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) Despite lapse of more

4

than the allowed time, no objections were filed. See Local Rule 304(b), (d).

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

6

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the

7

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

8

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing:

9

1.

10

The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. No. 83), filed on December 30, 2015,
are ADOPTED in full;

11

2.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 74) is DENIED; and

12

3.

The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings

13
14
15

including the setting of a trial date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 7, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2