(PC) Sims v. Veal et al, No. 2:2007cv00898 - Document 85 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 78 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/29/10: Defendants' November 25, 2009 motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants are granted thirty days to file an appropriate motion. Plaintiff's September 8, 2009 "Application for Sanctions" 66 and October 28, 2009 "Motion for the Court to Order Damages" 71 are denied. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Sims v. Veal et al Doc. 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STANLEY SIMS, 11 Plaintiff, Defendants. 12 13 No. CIV S-07-0898 MCE EFB P ORDER vs. VEAL, et al., 14 15 / 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On August 31, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from the 22 date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff filed objections on September 17, 23 2010, and after an extension of time, on September 29, 2010, defendants declined to file 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 /// 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 3 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 31, 2010, are adopted in full. 7 2. Defendants’ November 25, 2009 motion for summary judgment is denied. 8 3. Defendants are granted thirty days to file an appropriate motion as to plaintiff’s 9 claim that defendant Halverson violated his Eighth Amendment rights by confiscating his special 10 diet card on May 26, 2005 or, alternatively a pretrial statement as to that claim and plaintiff’s 11 remaining claims. 12 13 14 15 4. Plaintiff’s September 8, 2009 “Application for Sanctions” (Dckt. No. 66) and October 28, 2009 “Motion for the Court to Order Damages” (Dckt. No. 71) are denied. So ordered. Dated: September 29, 2010 16 17 18 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
