Harpool v. Beyer et al

Filing 75

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/7/2012, DENYING as inapposite and premature, plaintiff's 74 motion for appointment of a neurological and/or orthopedic surgeon/specialist to testify regarding his injury before a jury; and no modification of the 7/6/2012 findings and recommendations is warranted in light of the response provided by plaintiff following the notice the court provided post-Woods. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GARY L. HARPOOL,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:10-cv-1253 MCE GGH P

M. BEYER, et al.,

14
15

ORDER

Defendants.
/

16

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se who seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

17

§ 1983. Findings and recommendations have been pending since July 6, 2006, recommending

18

that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. Although

19

plaintiff had been previously informed of the requirements to oppose summary judgment

20

pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court had found

21

plaintiff’s opposition sufficient and well reasoned, in light of Woods v. Carey, --- F.3d ----, 2012

22

WL 2626912 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012), by order, filed on July 12, 2012, plaintiff was informed

23

again and given an opportunity to provide further evidentiary submissions in support of his

24

opposition, although no such additional submissions were required.

25
26

Plaintiff’s response came in the form of a “motion for additional evidentiary
submissions” wherein plaintiff in part recounts the evidentiary submissions which he notes were
1

1

on file in the form of an opposition and supplemental opposition with exhibits and which this

2

court had already considered. He also takes the opportunity given him, not to provide additional

3

evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, but to move for appointment of a

4

neurological and/or orthopedic specialist to testify regarding plaintiff’s injury before a jury at the

5

trial he anticipates.

6

Plaintiff’s motion is inapposite for purposes of opposition to defendants’ motion

7

for summary judgment and is premature inasmuch as the findings and recommendations are still

8

pending.

9

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

10

1. Plaintiff’s July 20, 2012 (docket # 74) motion for appointment of a

11

neurological and/or orthopedic surgeon/specialist to testify regarding his injury before a jury is

12

denied as inapposite and premature; and

13

2. No modification of the findings and recommendations, filed on July 6, 2012, is

14

warranted in light of the response provided by plaintiff following the notice the court provided

15

post-Woods.

16

DATED: August 7, 2012

17
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19

GGH:009
harp1253.ord

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2