Dawson v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 90

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that Plaintiff's First 64 Motion for Summary Judgment be Deemed Superceded by Plaintiff's 84 Second Motion for Summary Judgment, Rendering the First Motion for Summary Judgment Moot; Objections, if any, Due within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/17/2018. referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISAAC DA’BOUR DAWSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

BEARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA-PC
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 64) BE DEEMED
SUPERCEDED BY PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 84), RENDERING
THE FIRST MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOOT
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

18
19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS

22

On June 8, 2018, findings and recommendations were entered by the undersigned,

23

recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed on November 6, 2017, be

24

stricken from the record as deficient, with leave to file a new motion for summary judgment no

25

later than August 30, 2018. (ECF No. 82.) The parties were granted fourteen days in which to

26

file objections to the findings and recommendations.

27

objections expired, and no objections were filed. The findings and recommendations are

28

pending.
1

The fourteen-day time period for

1

On July 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
In light of the fact that no objections were filed by any party to the court’s

2

84.)

3

recommendation to strike Plaintiff’s first motion for summary judgment, and the fact that

4

Plaintiff has now filed a second motion for summary judgment, the court shall recommend that

5

Plaintiff’s first motion for summary judgment be deemed superceded by Plaintiff’s second

6

motion for summary judgment, rendering Plaintiff’s first motion for summary judgment moot.

7

II.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s first

9

motion for summary judgment, filed on November 6, 2017, be deemed superceded by

10

Plaintiff’s second motion for summary judgment, filed on July 23, 2018, rendering Plaintiff’s

11

first motion for summary judgment moot.

12

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

13

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

14

(14) days of the date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file

15

written objections with the court.

16

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be

17

served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

18

that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on

19

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,

20

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 17, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2