Banks, Sr. v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

Filing 75

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 07/21/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's 72 Notice of Appeal WILL NOT be processed because the 68 judgment plaintiff seeks to appeal has been vacated; ADOPTING 64 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS in full; defendants' 53 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

YUJUAN L. BANKS, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:14-cv-0460 TLN KJN P

ORDER

U.C. REGENTS, 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.
On February 12, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

20
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. (ECF No. 64.) The

23

magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ summary judgment motion be granted. (ECF

24

No. 64.) On May 9, 2016, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations, observing

25

that plaintiff had not filed objections, and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 67, 68.)

26

However, on April 26, 2016, pursuant to the mailbox rule, plaintiff filed timely

27

objections.1 (ECF No. 70.) The Court was not aware of the objections at the time the May 9,

28

1

Plaintiff’s objections are court stamp filed May 9, 2016. (ECF No. 70.)

1

1

2016 order was entered. Accordingly, on May 27, 2016, the Court vacated the May 9, 2016 order

2

and judgment. (ECF No. 71.) In the May 27, 2016 order, the Court deemed plaintiff’s objections

3

timely and granted defendants fourteen days to file a reply to plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No.

4

71.) On June 10, 2016, defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 73.)

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

6

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

7

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

8

analysis.

9

On June 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the vacated May 9, 2016 judgment.

10

(ECF No. 72.) Because the judgment was vacated, plaintiff’s appeal will not be processed.

11

Plaintiff may refile a notice of appeal of the instant order and accompanying entry of judgment.

12
13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal (ECF No. 72) will not be processed because the judgment

15

plaintiff seeks to appeal has been vacated;

16

2. The findings and recommendations filed February 12, 2016 are adopted in full; and

17

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 53) is granted.

18
19

Dated: July 21, 2016

20
21
22
23

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2