(PC) Farlough v. Dawson et al, No. 1:2007cv01108 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, DENYING 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and REFERRING Action to Magistrate Judge for Screening, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/18/2009. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Farlough v. Dawson et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) Plantiff, ) ) v. ) ) NICHOLAS DAWSON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) DEXTER S.C. FARLOUGH, 1:07-CV-1108 AWI YNP (SMS) PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Document #14) 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner who is a proceeding with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 19 On May 1, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, 20 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied. The Findings and 21 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and gave notice that Plaintiff could file objections. 22 On May 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed objections. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has conducted a 24 de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 25 (9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the Findings and 26 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court is required to 27 screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint 2 or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that 3 fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a 4 defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The Magistrate Judge 5 has not yet screened Plaintiff’s complaint. The court recognizes that this action has been 6 delayed. However, Defendants have not yet made an appearance in this action. As such, any 7 motion for summary judgment by Plaintiff is premature. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 1, 2009, are ADOPTED; 10 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is DENIED; and 11 3. This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for screening pursuant to 28 12 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: 0m8i78 September 18, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
