United States District Court, E.D. California
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On October 18, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed (Docs. 535, 536, 538).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), 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.
On March 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's March 21, 2014 order denying plaintiff's December 9, 2013 motion to stay this action. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 303(f), a Magistrate Judge's order shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The March 21, 2014, order is, therefore, affirmed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 18, 2013, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's October 24, 2013 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 536) is construed as objections to the October 18, 2013 findings and recommendations;
3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 526) is granted in part and denied in part;
4. Defendants' motion is granted as to defendants DeSantis, Riley, and Marshall;
5. Defendants' motion is denied as to defendant Cooper;
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants DeSantis, Riley, and Marshall;
7. This case shall continue as to defendant Cooper only as to plaintiff's claim that defendant Cooper failed to honor his medical chronos ...