(PS) Chipman v. Nelson et al
Filing
599
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/31/2018 DENYING #579 Motion to Re-Open Case. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICKIE L. CHIPMAN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-02770-TLN-EFB P
v.
ORDER
MARCIA F. NELSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
This matter relates to the death of Plaintiff’s mother. The matter was referred to a United
17
18
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, as Plaintiff
19
proceeded pro se. On September 12, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and
20
recommendations (“the F&R,” ECF No. 571) recommending the Court grant Defendants’ motion
21
for summary judgment (ECF No. 554) on Plaintiff’s only remaining claim — wrongful death
22
against Defendants Dr. Joseph Matthews and Enloe Medical Center. The F&R contained notice
23
that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.
24
(ECF No. 571.) No objections were filed within that period. On October 5, 2017, the Court
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
1
adopted the F&R in full, granted the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 554), and directed
2
the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Defendants’ favor and close the case. (ECF No 572.)
On October 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion which she denominates “Plaintiff’s
3
4
Motions to Re-Open Case; and My Objections to: Judge’s Findings & Recommendations; and
5
Order; and Judgment; and Opposition to Defendant Jane E. Stansell’s Notice of Entry of
6
Judgment in Favor of All Defendants.” (ECF No. 579.) In short, Plaintiff requests that the Court
7
re-open her case, vacate the Court’s order approving the F&R (ECF No. 572), along with the
8
related judgment (ECF No. 573) and notices (ECF Nos. 574–578), and consider her late-filed
9
objections to the F&R.1 Plaintiff claims she was unaware of ECF Nos. 571 through 578 until
10
October 17, 2017, because she “was unable to read [her] emails until October 17, 2017.” (ECF
11
No. 579 at 3.) Plaintiff seemingly stopped reviewing her email due to working “many overtime
12
hours (12–14 hour days) providing nursing care to twenty six elderly individuals.”2 (ECF No.
13
579 at 2–3.)
14
The Court is extremely doubtful that the unilateral decision of pro se litigant to stop
15
reviewing her email excuses that litigant from filing timely objections to an U.S. Magistrate
16
Judge’s findings and recommendations. However, as the Court will explain, even if Plaintiff’s
17
objections had been timely, the result would have been the same. As is the Court’s practice, the
18
Court carefully conducted de novo review of the F&R prior to entering its Order adopting the
19
F&R. Having done so, the Court found the F&R to be well reasoned, and concluded that
20
summary judgment should be granted on Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim. The Court has
21
carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions in connection with the instant motion. Plaintiff has not
22
shown that the F&R contains any legal or factual error. Similarly, nothing in Plaintiff’s
23
submissions in anyway undermines recommendations contained in the F&R. Consequently, had
24
Plaintiff made these same submissions as timely objections, the Court would have overruled them
25
and approved the F&R in full. Likewise, Plaintiff’s submissions have not persuaded the Court
26
27
1
For the sake of completeness, the Court observes that Plaintiff “opposes” the notices (ECF No. 574–578.)
It is unclear precisely when Plaintiff stopped reviewing her email. However, she indicates the uptick in her
work began in the “end of July 2017.” (ECF No. 579 at 2.)
2
28
2
1
that there is any legal basis for reconsidering its Order approving the F&R. Simply put, Plaintiff
2
has not shown any proper legal basis for re-opening this case. For the reasons set forth above,
3
Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 579) is DENIED.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED
5
6
Dated: August 31, 2018
7
8
9
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?