The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 302.
On October 23, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 304, 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. Thus, the court adopts the findings and recommendations.
On September 6, 2011, the court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Lahey, Tan, and Traquina. However, plaintiff was not provided contemporaneous notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment at the time the November 1, 2010 motion was filed.
On July 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued an order requiring that all prisoners proceeding pro se must be provided contemporaneous notice of certain requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 2012 WL 2626912,*1 (9th Cir. July 06, 2012 ), citing Rand and Klingele. The district court may provide such notice if defendants fail to do so. Woods, 2012 WL 2626912 at *5. Woods applies to both "pending and future cases." Id. at *6. Therefore, the court will provide plaintiff with the notice required under Woods, and will grant plaintiff an extension of time to file a supplemental opposition to the November 1, 2010 motion for summary judgment. Defendants may file a reply seven days thereafter.
Plaintiff is not required to file a supplemental opposition. If plaintiff fails to file a supplemental opposition, the prior ruling on the November 1, 2010 motion will stand.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 23, 2012, are adopted in full;
2. The June 11, 2012 motion for summary judgment (dkt no. 92) is granted, and Dr. Basi is dismissed from this case with prejudice;
3. Plaintiff is informed of the following requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment:
Plaintiff is informed that the following requirements apply for opposing a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Such a motion is a request for an order for judgment in favor of the defendant without trial. A defendant's motion for summary judgment will set forth the facts that the defendant contends are not reasonably subject to dispute and that entitle the defendant to judgment.
To oppose a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff must show proof of his or her claims. Plaintiff may do this in one or more of the following ways. Plaintiff may rely on plaintiff's statements made under penalty of perjury in the complaint if the complaint shows that plaintiff has personal knowledge of the matters stated and plaintiff specifies those parts of the complaint on which plaintiff relies. Unsigned affidavits or declarations will be stricken, and affidavits or declarations not signed under penalty of perjury have no evidentiary value. Plaintiff may serve and file one or more affidavits or declarations setting forth the facts that plaintiff believes prove plaintiff's claims; the person who signs an affidavit or declaration must have personal knowledge of the facts stated. Plaintiff may rely on written records, but plaintiff must ...