Mason v. Martinez, et al.

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/29/2016 ORDERING that the 42 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Defendants 22 motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: GRANTED as to defendant V. Martinez and the claims against defendant V. Martinez are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust. DENIED as to defendants Major, Lozano, Matteson, and Kyte. The case proceeds on the claims against defendants M. Martinez, Major, Lozano,Matteson, and Kyte. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHAVOUGUE A. MASON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1041 MCE AC P

v.

ORDER

M.L. MARTINEZ, 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 March 9, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

20
21

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 42. Both parties

23

have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF Nos. 46, 47.
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

////

27

////

28

////
1

1

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

2

analysis.1

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 9, 2016 (ECF No. 42), are ADOPTED

5
6
7

in full.
2. Defendants motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED and part
and DENIED in part as follows:

8
9

a. GRANTED as to defendant V. Martinez and the claims against defendant V.
Martinez are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

10
11
12
13
14

b. DENIED as to defendants Major, Lozano, Matteson, and Kyte.
3. The case proceeds on the claims against defendants M. Martinez, Major, Lozano,
Matteson, and Kyte.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2016

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

In denying the motion for summary judgment as to defendants Lozano, Matteson,
Major, and Kyte, the magistrate judge relied on Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016).
Defendants object on the ground that they disagree with the reasoning in Reyes and note that the
defendants-appellees in that case filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.
ECF No. 46. However, a week before defendants filed their objections, the Ninth Circuit denied
the petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc. Reyes v. Smith, No. 13-17119, Docket No.
49 (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2016).
2