Baker v. Gipson et al

Filing 61

ORDER DENYING Objections to Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment 59 , 60 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/1/16: The Objections are DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT G. BAKER

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

14

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01931-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO
ORDER
DENYING
MOTION
FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos. 59, 60)

Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 7 & 10.) The action

19

proceeds against Defendant Kitt on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical

20

care claim. (ECF No. 11.) On May 13, 2016, the undersigned denied Defendant’s motion

21

for summary judgment. (ECF No. 56.) On May 27, 2016, Defendant twice filed identical

22

objections to the Court’s order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and Local

23

Rules 303 and 304.1

24
25
26
27
28

1

The objections identify the Defendant in this case as Dr. Mui. (ECF No. 59 at 2.) Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment identified the Defendant as Dr. Pineda. (ECF No. 48-3 at 12). The actual Defendant in
this case is Dr. Kitt. This repeated misidentification has created confusion for the Court and for Plaintiff.
(See ECF No. 49 at 3.) The twice erroneously filed (see below) objections did likewise. Such careless
errors not only confuse; they waste time of the Court and the parties. All make errors of this nature on
occasion, but counsel for the defense has exceeded the quota by far. It is time counsel give federal court
filings the attention they deserve. Repeated such error will be sanctioned.

1

1

Rule 72 and Local Rules 303 and 304 apply in matters referred to a Magistrate

2

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). It is apparent that Defendant wishes the

3

objections to be reviewed de novo by a District Judge. However, the instant matter is

4

before the undersigned for all purposes pursuant to the consent of the parties and 28

5

U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 8, 33.) Review of this matter by a District Judge therefore is

6

not available to Defendant.

7

To the extent Defendant wishes to seek further review of the order denying his

8

motion for summary judgment, he may file a motion for reconsideration of same, keeping

9

in mind that the applicable standard of review differs from that presented in Defendant’s

10
11
12

objections.
Accordingly, the objections are HEREBY DENIED without prejudice to Defendant
raising his arguments in a properly filed motion.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 1, 2016

/s/

16

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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