Lear v. Biter et al
Filing
78
ORDER ADOPTING 76 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 51 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER DENYING Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 64 ; ORDER DENYING 69 Motion for an Immediate Resolution of all claims; ORDER DENYING 74 Motion for an Albino Hearing; This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/24/18. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 1:15-cv-01903-DAD-JDP (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
JOHNATHAN AKANNO and JENNIFER
PALOMINO,
(Doc. Nos. 51, 64, 69, 74, 76)
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff Roderick William Lear is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred
20
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On August 30, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
22
recommending that the court deny the following: plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining
23
order, defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, plaintiff’s motion for
24
immediate resolution of all claims, and plaintiff’s motion for a hearing pursuant to Albino v.
25
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014), and other miscellaneous relief. (Doc. No. 76.) The findings
26
and recommendations provided fourteen days for the parties to file objections. (Id.) On
27
September 10, 2018, plaintiff filed a response stating that he has no objections to the findings and
28
recommendations. (Doc. No. 77.) Defendants did not file objections, and the time for doing so
1
1
2
has expired.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
3
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
4
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
5
Accordingly,
6
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 30, 2018 (Doc. No. 76) are
7
adopted in full;
8
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment due to plaintiff’s claimed failure to
9
exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit (Doc. No. 51) is denied;
10
3. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 64 at 2) is denied;
11
4. Plaintiff’s motion for an immediate resolution of all claims and for other relief
12
(Doc. No. 69) is denied;
5. Plaintiff’s motion for an Albino hearing and for other relief (Doc. No. 74) is
13
14
denied; and
15
6. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
16
17
18
19
proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 24, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?