Bartholomew v. Solorzano

Filing 47

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/24/2017; GRANTING 45 Motion for Extension of time; Plaintiff's objections are deemed timely filed; ADOPTING in FULL 43 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 28 Motion for Summary Judgment; This action to remain open. (Washington, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN BARTHOLOMEW, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-1500 GEB DB P v. ORDER A. V. SOLORZANO, 15 Defendant. 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. On January 4, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s January 18, 2017, motion for extension of time (ECF No. 45) is granted; 3 2. Plaintiff’s objections are deemed timely filed; 4 3. The findings and recommendations filed January 4, 2017 (ECF No. 43), are adopted in 5 full; 6 4. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28) is denied; and 7 5. This action to remain open. 8 9 Dated: February 24, 2017 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?