Vlasich v. Nareddy et al

Filing 59

ORDER Adopting 53 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's 41 Motion for Extension of Time signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/6/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 STEVEN VLASICH, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 v. DR. C. NAREDDY and DR. O. BEREGOVSKAYA, Case No. 1:13-cv-00326-LJO-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF. NOS. 41, 53, & 58) Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 Steven Vlasich (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, against defendants Dr. C. Nareddy and Dr. O. Beregovskaya (“Defendants”) on a claim for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amendment. (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 21, & 22). The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 7, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 41). On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 48). On May 1, 2017, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition (ECF No. 50) and evidentiary objections to materials submitted by Plaintiff in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51). On July 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. 1 1 (ECF No. 53). The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 2 recommendations within twenty-one days. Defendants filed objections to the findings and 3 recommendations. 4 recommendations, or a reply to Defendants’ objections. However, Plaintiff did file a motion 5 for an extension of time to file a reply to Defendants’ objections. (ECF No. 58). (ECF No. 57). Plaintiff did not file objections to the findings and 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 7 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 8 including the objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 9 the record and proper analysis. The Court agrees with the overall conclusion of the F&Rs that 10 Plaintiff’s claims are supported by evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from that 11 evidence. 12 Plaintiff’’s claims, disputes of material fact still remain as to all claims against all defendants, 13 precluding summary judgment. Although Defendants have produced considerable evidence that contradicts 14 As the Court is adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, it is 15 unnecessary for Plaintiff to file a reply to Defendants’ objections. Therefore, the Court will 16 deny Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time. 17 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on July 26, 2017, 19 are ADOPTED in full; 20 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED; 21 3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is DENIED; and 22 4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ October 6, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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?