Whitaker v. Jaffe et al

Filing 108

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/26/12 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 8/8/12 98 are ADOPTED in full; and Plaintiff's MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 80 , 83 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH WHITAKER,

12

Plaintiff,

No. 2:10-cv-1400 KJM EFB P

Defendants.

ORDER

13
14

vs.
CHEN, et al.,

15

/

16
17

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

18

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

19

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On August 8, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

21

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

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from the date the

23

findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

24

recommendations. He complains that the magistrate judge did not provide a renewed Rand1

25
26

1

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957–58 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc)
1

1

notice. As required by Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-41 (9th Cir. 2012), an inmate must be

2

given notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment close to the time a

3

motion is filed rather than at the beginning of the litigation. In this case, plaintiff brought the

4

motion for summary judgment.

5

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

6

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

7

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper

8

analysis.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10
11

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2012, are adopted in full;
and

12

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dckt. Nos. 80, 83) is denied.

13

So ordered.

14

DATED: September 26, 2012.

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2