Bullard v. St. Andra et al
Filing
47
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 43 ; ORDER VACATING August 29, 2018 Order Adopting 46 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/30/2018: Plaintiff's request (Doc. No. 33 ) to vacate the protective order staying discovery (Doc. No. 29 ) is granted; and Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 41 ) to vacate the present discovery and scheduling order (Doc. No. 22 ) is granted. (Hellings, J)
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
16
17
v.
Case No. 1:17-cv-0328 LJO JDP (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT;
R. ST. ANDRA, et al.,
(Doc. No. 43)
Defendant.
ORDER VACATING AUGUST 29, 2018
ORDER ADOPTING
(Doc. No. 46)
18
19
Plaintiff Efren Danielle Bullard is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a
21
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
22
On February 16, 2018, Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
23
Procedure 56, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. (Doc. No.
24
23.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 33), and Defendants filed a reply on
25
April 17, 2018 (Doc No. 35.) On August 17, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that
26
Defendants’ motion be denied, in its entirety. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the
27
protective order staying all discovery (Doc. No. 29) be vacated and that Defendants’ motion (Doc.
28
1
1
No. 41) to vacate the present discovery and scheduling order (Doc. No. 22) be granted. The findings
2
and recommendations was served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the
3
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. Defendants timely
4
filed objections on August 28, 2018. (Doc. No. 45.)
5
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
6
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
7
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The
8
objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.
9
On August 29, 2018, this Court issued an order adopting the findings and
10
recommendations that contained typographic and/or clerical errors. Accordingly, that order is
11
VACATED.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1.
The Court’s August 29, 2018 order (Doc. No. 46) is VACATED;
14
2.
The findings and recommendations issued on August 17, 2018, are adopted in full;
15
3.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on February 16, 2018, (Doc. No.
16
17
23) is denied;
4.
18
19
Plaintiff’s request (Doc. No. 33) to vacate the protective order staying discovery
(Doc. No. 29) is granted; and
5.
20
Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 41) to vacate the present discovery and scheduling
order (Doc. No. 22) is granted.
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
August 30, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?