(PC) Turner v. Zepp, et al.

Filing 113

ORDER ADOPTING 108 Findings and Recommendations Recommending that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment be Granted, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/14/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

VINCENT TURNER,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00184-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED

ANDREW ZEPP, et al.,
(ECF No. 108).
Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Vincent Turner (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 October 28, 2021, Defendant Khaled A. Tawansy filed a motion for summary

21

judgment. (ECF No. 72). On November 1, 2021, Defendant Andrew Zepp filed a motion for

22

summary judgment. (ECF No. 74). Plaintiff filed several documents purporting to respond to both

23

motions. (ECF Nos. 78, 91-95). After the Plaintiff was granted to leave to file supplemental

24

briefing in opposition to Defendants’ motions, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant Tawansy’s

25

Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts on May 2, 2022. (ECF No. 104). Defendant Tawansy

26

filed a reply and objections to Plaintiff’s response on May 11, 2022. (ECF No. 105). Defendant

27

Zepp filed a reply in support of his motion for summary judgment, noting that Plaintiff’s

28
1

1

opposition solely addressed Defendant Tawansy’s motion and did not contain any arguments

2

referring to Defendant Zepp. (ECF No. 106).
On July 27, 2022, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

3
4

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 108). Those findings and

5

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto

6
7
8
9

were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. (Id.) Any reply to the
objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after the services of the objections. (Id.) On
September 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed what appear to be his objections the findings and
recommendations. (ECF No. 112).
After the findings and recommendations were entered, Plaintiff filed additional documents

10
11
12

seemingly intended to supplement his opposition to Defendants’ motions and not directed toward
addressing any objections to the findings and recommendations. (See ECF Nos. 109, 110). On
August 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to address unidentified

13

“unanswered Response[s].”1 (ECF No. 109). On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed his response to

14

Defendant Tawansy’s objections and objections to summary judgment statements. (ECF No.

15

110). This appears to be an unauthorized and improper sur-reply to Defendant Tawansy’s

16

objections to Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 105). Plaintiff was previously advised in the order

17

granting an extension of time to file supplemental briefing in opposition to Defendants’ motions

18

that if he needed “additional time to file his opposition . . . he should file a signed motion

19

explaining the reasons for his request before the deadline expires.” (ECF No. 103, n.9 at 14). The

20

deadline for Plaintiff to file supplemental briefing in opposition to Defendants’ motions was April

21

7, 2022. (See ECF No. 103). However, even if Plaintiff had permission to file his response and

22

the Court considered it, the objections raised by Plaintiff would not change the analysis contained

23

in the findings and recommendations.
On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion against judgment which expressed Plaintiff’s

24
25
26
27
28

position that he never consented to having a magistrate judge rule in his case, and that he objected
1

In his motion for an extension of time, Plaintiff also generally states that he has requested legal assistance, and that
he is willing to settle with Defendant Zepp. (ECF No. 109). It is unclear if Plaintiff is renewing his request for the
appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s most recent request for counsel was denied on February 11, 2022. (ECF No. 99).
Additionally, Plaintiff indicates that he filed a discovery motion requesting phone records for which he did not
receive a response. However, Plaintiff’s discovery request was denied on March 3, 2022. (See ECF No 103).

2

1

to the ruling. (ECF No. 111). The Court notes that this is not a consent case, and as such, the

2

undersigned district judge issues any final dispositional order.

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

4

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

5

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

6
7
8
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the assigned magistrate judge on July
27, 2022 (ECF No. 108), are adopted in full; and
2. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 72, 74) are granted;
3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 109) and motion against

10
judgment (ECF No. 111) are denied; and
11
12

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgement in favor of Defendants Zepp and
Tawansy and CLOSE this case.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: September 14, 2022

16

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3