(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