Green v. Nangalama, et al
Filing
50
ORDER denying signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 09/28/18. The findings and recommendations filed September 13, 2017 [ECF 40] ADOPTED as to all conclusions except those pertaining to qualified immunity; Defendant's summary judgment motion [ECF No. 32] GRANTED; Plaintiff's summary judgment motion [ECF No. 30] DENIED; Defendant's motion to strike [ECF No. 47] DENIED;Enter judgment for defendant and close this case. (Andrews, P)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LONZELL GREEN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:13-cv-2390-KJM-CMK-P
v.
ORDER
ANDREW NANGALAMA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
18
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by
19
Eastern District of California local rules.
On September 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations
20
21
(“F&Rs”), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file
22
objections within a specified time. F&Rs, ECF No. 40. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings
23
and recommendations. ECF No. 44. Defendants responded. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff then, without
24
permission, filed an objection to defendant’s response. ECF No. 46. Defendant has since moved
25
to strike plaintiff’s second objection. ECF No. 47. Plaintiff opposed the motion to strike. ECF
26
No. 48. The court is persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that he is entitled to the benefits of the
27
mailbox rule, and therefore considers plaintiff’s objections here.
28
/////
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
2
304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having independently reviewed
3
the file and relevant authority, the court has determined that based on this record, no reasonable
4
juror could find defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs. The court
5
therefore adopts the findings and recommendations as to this conclusion. See id. at 16. Because
6
the court need not reach the question of qualified immunity, the court declines to adopt the
7
portion of the findings and recommendations addressing qualified immunity. Id. at 16-19.
8
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 13, 2017 (ECF No. 40),
10
are ADOPTED as to all conclusions except those pertaining to qualified
11
immunity;
12
2. Defendant’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED;
13
3. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 30) is DENIED;
14
4. Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 47) is DENIED;
15
5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for defendant and
16
17
close this case.
DATED: September 28, 2018.
18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?