Dennis v. Kerman et al

Filing 246

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/28/2023 ADOPTING 244 The Findings and Recommendations in full; Defendants' 149 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Plaintiff's 211 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant Secretary Allison is DISMISSED from this action because the only claim brought against her in her official capacity--one for injunctive relief--has been rendered moot; and The case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for purposes of issuing a Final Pretrial Order in this case. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MATTHEW M. DENNIS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 2:16-cv-00542-DAD-AC (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
THE PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 149, 211, 244)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Mathew M. Dennis is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred

19

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On April 7, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 149) be denied,

22

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 211) be denied, and defendant Secretary

23

Kathleen Allison be dismissed from this case. (Doc. No. 244.) Specifically, the magistrate judge

24

concluded that there were disputed issues of material fact both with respect to plaintiff’s hernia

25

and wrist conditions as presented to defendant Mays, his treating nurse practitioner, as well as

26

with respect to defendant Mays’s conduct, which precluded the granting of summary judgment in

27

favor of either party. (Doc. No. 244 at 17–21.) The magistrate judge noted that defendant

28

Secretary Allison had been named in this action solely in her official capacity as to plaintiff’s
1

1

claim for injunctive relief. (Id. at 16.) Because plaintiff had now been released from prison, his

2

claim for injunctive relief had been rendered moot, and dismissal of defendant Secretary Allison

3

as a defendant in this action was therefore recommended. (Id.)

4

The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that

5

any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of service. (Id. at 23.)

6

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 245.)

7

Defendants filed neither objections nor a reply to plaintiff’s objections, and the time to do so has

8

passed.

9

In his objections, plaintiff merely objects in a general fashion to the denial of his motion

10

for entry of summary judgment in his favor. (Doc. No. 245 at 2-5.)1 In this regard, plaintiff

11

repeats his criticism (which was properly addressed in the pending findings and

12

recommendations) regarding the manner in which defendants submitted their exhibits on

13

summary judgment, claims he was retaliated against during the course of this action, asserts he

14

received limited law library access, complains of defendants’ responses to his discovery requests,

15

argues that the granting of his motion for summary judgment would provide him “the opportunity

16

to . . . find an attorney willing to take on [his] case,” and repeats his contention that his prison

17

medical records establish that he was denied constitutionally adequate medical care. (Id. at 2–5.)

18

Finally, petitioner states that he has no objection to the recommendation that defendant Secretary

19

Allison be dismissed from this action. (Id. at 5.)
None of plaintiff’s objections, however, meaningfully call into question the thorough

20
21

analysis set forth in the pending findings and recommendation or provide any basis for their

22

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

23

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

24

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported

25

by the record and proper analysis.

26

/////

27
28

Plaintiff also “resubmitted” his motion for summary judgment which he had filed on June 27,
2022, and attached it to his objections. (Doc. No. 245 at 5–41; Doc. No. 211 at 1–35.)
2
1

1

Accordingly,

2

1.

3

The findings and recommendations issued on April 7, 2023 (Doc. No. 244) are
adopted in full;

4

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 149) is denied;

5

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 211) is denied;

6

4.

Defendant Secretary Allison is dismissed from this action because the only claim

7

brought against her in her official capacity—one for injunctive relief—has been

8

rendered moot; and

9

5.

10

Final Pretrial Order in this case.

11
12
13

The case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for purposes of issuing a

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 28, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3