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