Windham v. Marin et al

Filing 138

ORDER Adopting 136 Findings and Recommendations, Denying Defendants' 49 Motion for Summary Judgment, and Referring Matter for Evidentiary Hearing, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/6/18. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES W. WINDHAM, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Plaintiff, v. M. MARIN, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND REFERRING MATTER FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Doc. Nos. 49, 136) 17 18 Plaintiff Charles W. Windham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth 20 Amendment claims of excessive use of force against defendants Marin, Uribe, Rasley, Contreras, 21 Capano, Rubio, and Doe #1, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 22 defendants Navarro, Morales, Marin, and Shiver. This matter was referred to a United States 23 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On February 1, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 25 recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff had 26 failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit be denied without prejudice to an 27 evidentiary hearing being held in order to resolve factual disputes concerning exhaustion. (Doc. 28 No. 136.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice 1 1 that any objections must be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 9–10.) More than 2 fourteen days have passed, and no objections have been filed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 4 conducted a de novo review of this case and carefully reviewed the entire file. The undersigned 5 concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 6 analysis. 7 8 9 Given the foregoing: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 1, 2018 (Doc. No. 136) are adopted in full; 10 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 49) is denied; and 11 3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for the purpose of setting and 12 conducting an evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion and, if necessary, further 13 proceedings on plaintiff’s claims. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 6, 2018 UNITED STATES 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?