Arceo v. DVI, et al

Filing 88

ORDER ADOPTING 81 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 09/10/19. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 71 Motion for Summary Judgment as follows: Defendant Savage's motion for summary judgment is DENIED; the remaining defendants Surjick, Kong, Adams and McHugh are GRANTED summary judgment. Action is REMANDED to the assigned magistrate judge for further scheduling. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY ARCEO,

12
13
14

No. 2:11-cv-02396 MCE KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SOCORRO SALINAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

On January 29, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

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. Plaintiff has been

23

granted multiple extensions of time in which to file objections. (ECF Nos. 83, 85, 87.) On May

24

2, 2019, plaintiff was granted a final thirty days in which to file objections. (ECF No. 87.) Thirty

25

days have now passed, and no party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

26

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

27

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

28

ORDERED that:
1

1

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 29, 2019, are adopted in full;

2

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 71) is granted in part and denied

3

in part, as follows:

4

A. Defendant Savage’s motion for summary judgment is denied;

5

B. The remaining defendants Surjick, Kong, Adams and McHugh are granted

6
7
8
9

summary judgment; and
C. This action is remanded to the assigned magistrate judge for further scheduling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2019

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2