(PC) Glass v. Beer, et al, No. 1:2004cv05466 - Document 183 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 182 Findings and Recommendations, and DENYING Defendants' 103 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge to Set for Jury Trial signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/9/2009. (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
(PC) Glass v. Beer, et al Doc. 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DONALD GLASS, 10 CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05466-OWW-SMS PC Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT R. BEER, et al., (Docs. 103 and 182) 13 Defendants. ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO SET FOR JURY TRIAL 14 15 / 16 This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Donald Glass, a 17 state prisoner proceeding pro se. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 19 On July 28, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations 20 recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. The parties were given 21 thirty days within which to file objections. No objections were filed. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 23 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 24 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 28, 2009, is adopted in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed August 8, 2006, is DENIED, and 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to set for jury trial. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: September 9, 2009 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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.