(PC) Carter v. Fernandez et al, No. 1:2008cv01841 - Document 95 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 89 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 76 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/20/2011. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Carter v. Fernandez et al Doc. 95 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 IVAN RAY CARTER, JR., CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01841-AWI-DLB PC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 5 v. 6 A. FERNANDEZ, et al., 7 (DOC. 89) Defendants. 8 / 9 10 Plaintiff Ivan Ray Carter, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 11 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 17, 2010, Defendants filed a 12 motion for summary judgment. Doc. 76. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 13 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 14 On May 25, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 15 served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and 16 Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Doc. 89. Neither party filed a timely 17 Objection to the Findings and Recommendations. 18 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 19 novo review of this action. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 20 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 21 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 25, 2011, is adopted in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed November 17, 2010, is denied; 3. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: ciem0h September 20, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Dockets.Justia.com

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.