Guerra v. Kern County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 56

ORDER ADOPTING 54 Findings and Recommendation Regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ORDER DENYING Defendants' 37 Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies and Request to Dismiss Matter With Prejudice for Failure to Prosecute, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/25/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOAQUIN GUERRA,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff,
v.
KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01077-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 54)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO
EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND
REQUEST TO DISMISS MATTER WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF Nos. 37, 41)

21
22

Plaintiff Joaquin Guerra (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

23

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint

24

against Defendants Sweeney and Feely for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in

25

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

26

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

27

On May 22, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule

28

of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that the matter should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to exhaust
1

1

his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 37.) On August 13, 2015, Defendants also requested that this

2

case be dismissed with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to prosecute this action by failing

3

to appropriately respond to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 41.)

4

On March 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending

5

that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and request to dismiss the case with prejudice for

6

failure to prosecute, both be denied. (ECF No. 54.) The findings and recommendations notified the

7

parties that any objections were due within fourteen (14) days after service of that order. (Id. at 9.)

8

More than fourteen (14) days have passed, and no objections have been filed.

9

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

10

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and

11

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

12

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

in full;

14
15

The Court adopts the findings and recommendation (ECF No. 54), filed March 8, 2016,

2.

Defendants motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative

16

remedies, (ECF No. 37), and request to dismiss the matter with prejudice for failure to

17

prosecute, (ECF No. 41), are DENIED; and

18
19

3.

This matter is referred to the magistrate judge to whom it is assigned for further
proceedings.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2