Bullard v. St. Andra et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING 43 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Denying Defendants' 23 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/29/2018. Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EFREN DANIELLE BULLARD,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.

Case No. 1: 17-cv-0328 LJO JDP
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

R. ST. ANDRA, et al.,
(Doc. No. 43)
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Efren Danielle Bullard is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

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

19

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On February 16, 2018, Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

21

Procedure 56, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. (Doc. No.

22

23.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 33), and Defendants filed a reply on

23

April 17, 2018 (Doc No. 35.) On August 17, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that

24

Defendants’ motion be denied, in its entirety. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the

25

protective order staying all discovery (Doc. No. 29) be vacated and that Defendants’ motion (Doc.

26

No. 41) to vacate the present discovery and scheduling order (Doc. No. 22) be granted. The findings

27

and recommendations was served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the

28

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. Defendants timely
1

1
2

filed objections on August 28, 2018. (Doc. No. 45.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

3

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the

4

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

5

objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

The findings and recommendations issued on August 17, 2018, are adopted in full;

8

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on February 16, 2018, is denied;

9

3.

Defendants shall file an answer within fourteen (14) days of this order pursuant to

10
11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A);
4.

12
13

Plaintiff’s request (Doc. No. 33) to vacate the protective order staying discovery
(Doc. No. 29) is granted; and

5.

14

Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 41) to vacate the present discovery and scheduling
order (Doc. No. 22) is granted.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

August 29, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2