Thomas v. Lewis et al

Filing 111

ORDER adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 97 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/10/2019. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHNNY C. THOMAS,

12

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Defendant.

13
14

No. 1:16-cv-00524-DAD-EPG

(Doc. No. 97)

v.
MARK KUO,

15
16
17

Plaintiff, Johnny C. Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18
19

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

20

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

21
22

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and supplemental motion for

23

summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 68, 71) be denied, and that defendant’s cross-motion for summary

24

judgment (Doc. No. 70) also be denied. (Doc. No. 97.) The findings and recommendations were

25

served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were due within twenty-one (21)

26

days. (Id. at 22.) Neither party has filed any objections and the time to do so has now passed.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

2

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

3

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6
7

The findings and recommendations entered on June 5, 2019 (Doc. No. 97) are
adopted in full;

2.

8

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and supplemental motion for summary
judgment (Doc. Nos. 68, 71) are denied;

9

3.

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70) is denied; and

10

4.

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

11
12
13
14

proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 10, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2