Williams v. Romero et al

Filing 102

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/21/2020 ADOPTING in full 92 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 76 defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint to add Correctional Officer Zuniga as a Defendant is GRANTED and DENYING as MOOT 91 defendant's Motion to Amend the Answer. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LANCE WILLIAMS,

12

No. 2:17-cv-01884-TLN-DB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ROMERO, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this

18

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 14, 2020, 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 30 days. (ECF No. 92.) Both parties

23

filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1 (ECF Nos. 94, 97.) On October 5, 2020,

24

Plaintiff filed additional objections to Defendants’ objections to the findings and

25

recommendations. (ECF No. 101.)

26
27
28

1

On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 30-day extension of time to file a
reply to Defendants’ objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 100.) The Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and will permit the filing.
1

1

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

2

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

3

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see

4

also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed

5

findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and

6

decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th

7

Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi

8

Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

9

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court

10

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate

11

judge’s analysis.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 14, 2020 (ECF No. 92), are adopted

14

in full;

15

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 76) is DENIED;

16

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint to add Correctional Officer Zuniga as a

17

Defendant is GRANTED; and

18

4. Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Answer (ECF No. 91) is DENIED as moot.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: October 21, 2020

21
22
23

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2