Hamilton v. Wasco State Prison, et al.

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER 46 , 55 , 56 , 60 , [61, 62 , 63 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/6/17.(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALBERT J. HAMILTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CLENDEHEN,

15
16
17
18
19

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,
DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DIRECTING
DEFENDANT TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE
COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER
[ECF Nos. 46, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62,63]

Plaintiff Albert J. Hamilton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

20

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of

21

the United States Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2015. Local Rule 302.

22

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

23

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed three separate

24

Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied,

25

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s motion for

26

injunctive relief be denied. (ECF Nos. 60, 61, 62.) The Findings and Recommendations were served

27

on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. On November

28
1

1

28, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation recommending denial of his

2

motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 63.)

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

are adopted in full;

8
9

The Findings and Recommendations filed on November 7, 2016 (Doc. Nos. 60, 61, 62)

2.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 46) Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is
denied;

10
11

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 56) is denied, without prejudice;

12

4.

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 55) is denied; and

13

5.

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendant shall file a response

14

to the third amended complaint.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: January 6, 2017

18

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2