Shepard v. Borum et al
ORDER ADOPTING 80 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DENYING Defendant's 65 Motion for Summary Judgment ;ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 66 Motion for Summary Judgment ;ORDERED that the matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge for further proceeding, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/05/2021. (Martin-Gill, S)
Case 1:18-cv-00277-DAD-HBK Document 84 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:18-cv-00277-DAD-HBK
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
DENIAL OF CROSS MOTIONS FOR
M. BORUM, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 65, 66, 80)
Plaintiff Lamont Shepard is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 13, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
recommending that both plaintiff’s and defendants’ motions for summary judgment be denied.
(Doc. No. 80.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that there were material facts in
dispute which precluded the granting of summary judgment in favor of either plaintiff or
defendants as a matter of law, and that defendants had also failed to establish that they were
entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. (Id. at 13–14, 16.) The findings
and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were due
within fourteen days. (Id. at 17.) Plaintiff filed untimely objections on July 30, 2021. (Doc. No.
81.) Defendants did not file objections to the pending findings and recommendations.
Case 1:18-cv-00277-DAD-HBK Document 84 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2
Although plaintiff’s objections were received by the court after the fourteen-day period
for objections had passed, the court has reviewed plaintiff’s objections out of an abundance of
caution. In his objections, plaintiff disputes the facts asserted in defendants’ declarations, and
alleges that defendant Borum was fully aware of plaintiff’s litigation and inmate grievance history
at the time of his status change and that both defendants knowingly placed plaintiff in c-status in
error. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff’s objections do not address the magistrate judge’s reasoning as set
forth in the pending findings and recommendations, but rather, merely adds additional support to
the magistrate judge’s finding that the parties dispute over whether plaintiff’s history of filing
inmate grievances was a substantial or motivating factor behind his placement on c-status
precludes the granting of summary judgment in favor of any party to this action.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported
by the record and by proper analysis.
The findings and recommendations issued on July 13, 2021 (Doc. No. 80) are
adopted in full;
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied (Doc. No. 65);
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied (Doc. No. 66);
The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 5, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?