Terhune v. Lizarraga et al
Filing
42
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/29/2018 ADOPTING 35 Findings and Recommendations in Full; Defendant's 38 Motion for Extension of Time is GRATNED nunc pro tunc. The case shall proceed solely on Plaintiff's Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claim. (Fabillaran, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CAMERON R. TERHUNE,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-01738-TLN-DB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
JOE LIZARRAGA, et al.,
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.
20
On February 7, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein,
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 twenty-one days. (ECF No. 35.) On
23
March 19, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for a one-day extension of time to file objections to the
24
findings and recommendations (ECF No. 38) and simultaneously filed objections (ECF No. 39).
25
The Court will grant nunc pro tunc Defendant’s motion for an extension of time.
26
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
27
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
28
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
1
1
analysis.
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1. Defendant’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 38) is granted nunc pro tunc;
4
2. The findings and recommendations filed February 7, 2018 (ECF No. 35), are adopted
5
in full;
3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) is granted in part and denied
6
7
in part as follows:
a. Defendant’s motion on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
8
9
claim is denied;
10
b. Defendant’s motion on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim is granted; and
11
c. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to qualified immunity
12
is denied.
13
4. Plaintiff’s request to add the unidentified Mule Creek State Prison scheduler as a
14
Defendant in this matter is denied; and
5. The case shall proceed solely on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
15
16
claim.
17
Dated: March 29, 2018
18
19
20
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?