Lescallett v. Diaz et al

Filing 47

ORDER Adopting 46 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Defendants' 28 Motion for Summary Judgment be Granted signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/30/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARRELL JUNIOR LESCALLETT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Case No. 1:13-cv-01342-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT BE GRANTED

R. DIAZ, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 28, 46)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Darrell Junior Lescallett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On March 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

20

Defendants’ Gipson and Broomfield’s motion for summary judgment be granted.1 (ECF No. 46)

21

The Findings and Recommendations were served the parties, and contained notice that any

22

objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id., p. 11.) More than fourteen days have

23

passed and no objections have been filed.

24

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

25

of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

26
27
28

1

The Magistrate Judge also indicated that Plaintiff will be required to show cause, by
separate order, why Doe Defendants should not be dismissed from this action for failure to
identify them for service of process. (ECF No. 46, p. 1, n. 1.)
1

1

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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 10, 2017, are adopted in full;

4

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on May 17, 2016, is GRANTED:

5

3. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Gipson and Broomfield and

6

against Plaintiff;

7

4. Judgment shall be entered accordingly; and

8

5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings to address

9

the unidentified and unserved Doe Defendants.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

March 30, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2