UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 25, 2013
ANTONIO C. BUCKLEY,
EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 162, 171, 172, 173, 174, 186, 193)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO SET TRIAL (ECF Nos. 158, 165) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT (ECF No. 179)
Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 29, 2003. 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 December 20, 2011, the District Court adopted a findings and recommendations granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court ordered Defendants to submit a supplemental motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Defendants Howard, Winnett, Papac, Calderon and Kordan violated the Eighth Amendment by maliciously implementing a contraband search without a valid penological interest. On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a scheduling order setting trial in this action. On May 10, 2012, Defendants submitted their supplemental motion for summary judgment. On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second motion for a scheduling order to issue setting the trial in this action. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the supplemental motion for summary judgment on August 3, 2012. On October 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to formally suggest the death of Defendant Kordan. On December 17, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations recommending granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an objection to the findings and recommendations on January 10, 2013.
Based upon Defendant Kordan's motion for summary judgment being granted, Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied as moot. At this juncture, this action is ready to be set for trial and Plaintiff's motions for a scheduling order setting a trial date is granted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 on December 17, 2012, is adopted in full;
2. Defendants Howard, Winnett, Papac, Calderon, and Kordan's motion for summary judgment, filed May 10, 2012, is granted;*fn1
3. Plaintiff's motions for a scheduling order, filed April 9, 2012, and May 11, 2012, are granted;
4. Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed October 5, 2012, is denied as moot; and
5. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge to be set for trial. ..
IT IS SO ORDERED.