(PC) Benito Reyes v. Singh et al, No. 1:2011cv00362 - Document 58 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND OF CASE from Ninth Circuit After Indicative Ruling; ORDER Adopting 47 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING Defendants' [37 Amended Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT in Favor of Defendants Martinez and Nyenke; ORDER for Clerk to CLOSE CASE signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/1/2016.(Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENITO REYES, 12 13 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND OF CASE FROM NINTH CIRCUIT AFTER INDICATIVE RULING (ECF No. 55.) vs. 14 ROSE MARTINEZ and 15 CHINYERE NYENKE, 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 47.) Defendants. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 37.) 17 18 19 20 ORDER ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS MARTINEZ AND NYENKE 21 ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE 22 23 24 Benito Reyes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 25 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 26 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 27 On September 1, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 28 that Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 47.) The 1 1 parties were granted thirty days in which to file objections to the findings and 2 recommendations. 3 recommendations, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and closing the case. 4 (ECF No. 48.) Also on September 28, 2015, after the judgment had been entered, Plaintiff’s 5 objections to the findings and recommendations were filed by the Court. (ECF No. 50.) (Id.) On September 28, 2015, the Court adopted the findings and 6 On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of 7 Appeals. (ECF No. 51.) In the appeal, Plaintiff asserts that he filed timely objections to the 8 findings and recommendations, but the District Judge prematurely adopted the findings and 9 recommendations on September 28, 2015, without considering Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff 10 speculates that the District Judge mistakenly believed the parties were only given twenty days 11 to file objections, and issued the final order before the thirty-day deadline had expired. 12 On November 12, 2015, this Court issued an order, requesting remand of this case by 13 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1, based 14 on the Court’s discovery that the Court had entered judgment and closed the case prematurely. 15 The Court sought to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 16 Procedure, reopen the case, and reconsider Defendants’ amended motion for summary 17 judgment, taking into consideration Plaintiff’s timely filed objections to the findings and 18 recommendations. 19 On December 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals granted the request for remand after the 20 indicative ruling, remanding the case to the district court for the purpose of granting relief from 21 the judgment. (ECF No. 55.) On December 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued its formal 22 mandate. (ECF No. 57.) 23 This case has been reopened. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 24 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having 25 carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s timely filed objections, the Court finds 26 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 2 1. 3 4 September 1, 2015, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. 5 6 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment, filed on January 22, 2015, is GRANTED; and 3. 7 The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and enter judgment in favor of defendants Martinez and Nyenke. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill April 1, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
