McNeal v. Evert, et al

Filing 158

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 7/5/2013 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 145 are ADOPTED in FULL; Motion 141 for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to defendants J. Ginder, G McCoy, Hooven, Chenoweth, Ervin, Chatham, and C. Barton; and DENIED as to defendants Ervin and Chatham. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

VERNON WAYNE McNEAL,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:05-cv-0441 GEB EFB P

Defendants.

ORDER

vs.
EVERT, et al.,

/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On January 18, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

21

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither

22

party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The undersigned adopted those

23

findings and recommendations by order filed February 21, 2013. Dckt. No. 146.

24

Thereafter, plaintiff demonstrated that he could not have timely objected to the

25

findings and recommendations despite his diligence. Therefore, on April 4, 2013, the

26

undersigned vacated the February 21, 2013 order and allowed plaintiff 14 days to file objections.
1

1

After an extension of time, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on

2

June 3, 2013.

3

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

4

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

5

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

6

proper analysis.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 18, 2013 are adopted in full;

9

and

10

2. The August 2, 2012 motion for summary judgment (Dckt. No. 141) filed by

11

defendants Ginder, McCoy, Hooven, Chenoweth, Ervin, Chatham, and Barton is granted as to

12

defendants Ginder, McCoy, Hooven, Chenoweth, and Barton and denied as to defendants Ervin

13

and Chatham.

14
15

So ordered.
Dated: July 5, 2013

16
17
18

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2