Mendez v. United States of America et al

Filing 82

ORDER ADOPTING 72 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING 55 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 79 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/12/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELIPE MENDEZ, JR.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 17-cv-0555-NONE-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 55, 72, 79)
Defendants.

16
17

On April 20, 2017, plaintiff Felipe Mendez, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

18

brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that correctional and medical

19

officials at the Federal Correctional Institution at Mendota, California were deliberately

20

indifferent to his dental pain, committed medical malpractice in treating his dental pain, and

21

retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights. (Doc. No. 21; see also Doc.

22

No. 72 at 1, 5.) Two years after this action was filed, defendants moved for summary judgment.

23

(Doc. No. 55.) Plaintiff filed his opposition to defendants’ motion, to which defendants replied.

24

(Doc. Nos. 65, 67.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

25

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

26

On March 24, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

27

recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 72 at 24–

28

25.) Thereafter, plaintiff requested appointment of counsel to represent him in this civil action
1

1

and the magistrate judge denied that request. (Doc. Nos. 75, 76.) Plaintiff then filed another

2

motion, seeking to “stay” this action for six months so he could conduct additional discovery and

3

the magistrate judge instead granted plaintiff a 60-day extension to file his objections to the

4

pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 77, 78.) In response, plaintiff moved for

5

reconsideration of his six-month “stay” request, claiming that he had propounded discovery on

6

defendants on August 25, 2020—40 months after this action was filed and three months after the

7

pending findings and recommendations were issued—and was requesting additional time to move

8

to compel defendants to respond to his request for production of documents. (Doc. No. 79 at 1–

9

2.) Defendants have opposed plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and plaintiff has replied

10

thereto. (Doc. Nos. 80, 81.) To date, plaintiff still has not filed any objections to the pending

11

findings and recommendations.

12

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has

13

conducted a de novo review of this case. The court finds the pending findings and

14

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis and will adopt the findings

15

and recommendations. Plaintiff’s remaining motion will be denied as having been rendered moot

16

by this order.

17

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

18

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 72) are

19

ADOPTED in full;

20

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 55) is GRANTED;

21

3. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and for an extension of time (Doc. No. 79), filed

22
23

on October 20, 2020, is DENIED as moot;
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose

24
25
26

of closing the case and then to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 12, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2