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