(PC) Jason L. Thomas v. Sheppard-Brooks et al, No. 1:2006cv01332 - Document 98 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 97 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 81 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/07/2011. (Martin, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Jason L. Thomas v. Sheppard-Brooks et al Doc. 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON LATRELL THOMAS, 12 13 Case No. 1:06-cv-01332 LJO JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. (Doc. 97) 14 D. SHEPPARD-BROOKS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 4, 2011, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment be denied. (Doc. 97.) As an 22 initial matter, the assigned magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff’s motion did not comply with the 23 procedural requirements set forth in Local Rule 260(a). (Id. at 4-5.) The assigned magistrate judge 24 then found that based upon the evidence presented by the parties, genuine issues of material fact 25 remain as to whether Defendants Gonzales, Wilber, and James acted with “deliberate indifference” 26 to Plaintiff’s safety. (Id. at 6-9.) 27 The findings and recommendations contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 28 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days of being served with the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 findings and recommendations. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 2 findings and recommendations. 3 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court has conducted 4 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 5 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. 8 The findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge filed February 4, 2011, are adopted in full; and 9 2. 10 Plaintiff’s June 29, 2010, motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 81) is DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: b9ed48 March 7, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.