Jackson v. Diaz et al
Filing
37
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 23 , 34 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/24/2018: This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEMORIA JACKSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
M. LUNES, et al.,
15
16
No. 1:17-cv-00027-DAD-JDP
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 23, 34)
17
18
Plaintiff Demoria Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
19
this civil rights action brought 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.
21
On January 12, 2018, defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of
22
Civil Procedure 56, arguing that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his available administrative
23
remedies before filing suit as required. (Doc. No. 23.) On August 16, 2018, the assigned
24
magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion
25
be granted in part after finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust certain claims. (Doc. No. 34.)
26
The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any
27
objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 13.) On September
28
4, 2018, plaintiff requested a thirty-day extension of time in which to file objections. (Doc. No.
1
1
35.) On September 5, 2018, the assigned magistrate granted plaintiff’s request in part, and
2
permitted plaintiff until September 18, 2018 to file objections. (Doc. No. 36.) To date, no
3
objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so
4
has now passed.
5
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
6
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
7
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
8
analysis.
9
10
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued August 16, 2018 (Doc. No. 34) are adopted
11
12
in full;
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 23) is granted in part and denied
13
in part without prejudice;
14
3. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s due process claim against defendant Lunes;
15
4. If defendants intend to file a second motion for summary judgment on the issue of
16
exhaustion, they are directed to request an evidentiary hearing on that issue within
17
twenty-one days after service of this order; and
18
19
20
21
5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 24, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?