(PC) Saenz v. Chavez, et al., No. 1:2011cv01872 - Document 60 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57 Denying Plaintiff's and Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant's Request for Additional Time (Docs. 32 , 36 , 55 , 56 , 59 ) signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/25/2016. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the parties shall file statements as to whether a court supervised settlement conference would be beneficial. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBERT GONZALES SANEZ, Case No. 1:11-cv-1872-AWI-SKO (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME 10 vs. 11 CHAVEZ, et al., 12 13 Defendants. (Docs. 32, 36, 55, 56, 57, 59) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, Robert Gonzales Saenz, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 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. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action against Defendant, Correctional Officer B. Lacey, on his claims in the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) for use of excessive physical force on March 12, 2010, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment, via the use of physical force on March 12, 2010, and cell searches which took place on March 13, 2010 and August 7, 2010, with concomitant property confiscation. (See Doc. 16.) Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 32, 36.) On February 24, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations to deny both motions which was served that same date and gave twenty-one days for the parties to file objections. (Doc. 57.) More than the allowed time has lapsed and Defendant did not file any 1 1 objections. Plaintiff filed timely objections in which he repeated and reemphasized the arguments 2 in his motion to strike Defendant’s declaration in support of the defense motion. (Doc. 58.) 3 Defendant filed a motion for a 10-day extension of time to file a reply to Plaintiff’s objections. 4 (Doc. 59). 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 6 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 7 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on February 24, 2016 (Doc. 57), is 10 adopted in full; 11 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, filed on July 20, 2015 (Doc. 32), is denied; 12 3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed on July 20, 2015 (Doc. 36), is 13 14 15 16 17 denied; 4. Defendant’s motion for additional time to reply to Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 59) is DENIED as moot; and 5. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the parties shall file statements as to whether a court supervised settlement conference would be beneficial. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: March 25, 2016 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
