UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 9, 2008
MANUEL JUAREZ, PLAINTIFF,
ALAMEDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND (1) DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS UNTIMELY, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 56(F) MOTION, (3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEAL, AND (4) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docs. 92, 94, 104, and 114) ORDER REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO SET TRIAL DATE
Plaintiff Manuel Juarez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.
On August 4, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection on August 21, 2008, and Defendants filed an Objection on September 3, 2008.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 4, 2008, is adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, filed January 18, 2008, is DISREGARDED on the ground that it was not timely filed;
3. Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion is DENIED on the ground the discovery was closed by the time Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment;
4. Defendants' motion to seal, filed October 18, 2007, is GRANTED; 5. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed October 18, 2007, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Defendants' motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff's claim that he was validated without notice and an opportunity to be heard is DENIED;
b. Defendants' motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff's claim that his validation was not supported by some evidence is GRANTED;
c. Defendants Gentry and Travers' motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff's due process claim against them is GRANTED;
d. Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is DENIED; and
6. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to be set for jury trial on the remaining due process claim against Defendants Verdin, Haws, Fischer, and Schmidt arising from Plaintiff's validation and assessment of an indeterminate SHU term without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.