Trujillo v. Munoz
Filing
82
ORDER ADOPTING 76 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings; ORDER DENYING 70 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/26/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00976-LJO-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
11
12
13
v.
(ECF NOS. 70 & 76)
MUNOZ AND ALVAREZ,
14
Defendants.
15
16
Guillermo Cruz Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a
18
United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
19
On March 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 70).1
20
On June 4, 2019, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations,
21
recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 76).
22
The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
23
recommendations.
24
recommendations. (ECF No. 79).
On June 20, 2019, Defendants filed objections to the findings and
25
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
26
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
27
1
28
Pursuant to the order issued by the Court on May 9, 2019, this motion for summary judgment applies to
all claims proceeding in this case. (ECF No. 65, p. 3).
1
1
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
2
analysis.
3
As to Defendants’ request for an evidentiary hearing, it will be denied.
The findings
4
and recommendations were based on undisputed facts. Therefore, there is no need for an
5
evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute of fact.
6
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
7
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on June 4, 2019,
8
9
are ADOPTED in full;
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED;
10
3. Defendants’ request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED; and
11
4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
12
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
June 26, 2019
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?