Davis III v. Gibson et al
Filing
51
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's 50 Motion for Summary Judgment be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/27/18. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RELMON H. DAVIS, III.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
GIBSON, et.al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:18-cv-00610-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED
[ECF No. 50]
Plaintiff Relmon H. Davis, III. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed December 26,
21
2018. Because Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective, the Court does not need a response from
22
Defendants prior to issuance of the instant Findings and Recommendation.
23
I.
24
DISCUSSION
25
Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment if the
26
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
27
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v.
28
U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party’s position, whether it be that a fact is disputed
1
1
or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including
2
but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials
3
cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot
4
produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted).
5
The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to
6
do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
7
Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).
8
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on his due process claim against Defendants.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is defective in that Plaintiff fails to cite or reference
9
10
any evidence but simply asserts brief legal conclusions. (ECF No. 50.) Local Rule 260 specifically
11
provides that every motion for summary judgment shall be accompanied by a Statement of Undisputed
12
Facts that shall “enumerate discretely each of the specific material facts relied upon in support of the
13
motion and cite the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer,
14
admission, or other document relied upon to establish that fact.” Local Rule 260(a); Fed. R. Civ. P.
15
56(c). Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion is nothing more than a recitation that he is entitled to the
16
relief set forth in the complaint. The parties bear the burden of supporting their motion and opposition
17
with the papers they wish the Court to consider and/or by specifically referencing any other portions of
18
the record they wish the Court to consider. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified
19
School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court will not undertake to mine the record
20
for triable issues of fact. In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 386 (9th Cir. 2010);
21
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010); Carmen v. San Francisco
22
Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d at 1031. Thus, Plaintiff, as the moving party, has failed to produce
23
evidence to meet his initial burden of proof, and the burden therefore has not shifted to Defendants.
24
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
II.
2
RECOMMENDATION
3
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed on December 26,
4
2018, should be denied in its entirety.
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
5
6
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days
7
after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections
8
with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
9
Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
10
result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
11
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated:
15
December 27, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?