(PC) Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al, No. 1:2009cv00749 - Document 274 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 272 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS;ORDER GRANTING IN PART Defendants' 246 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDERED that this action now proceeds only on plaintiffs claims brought against defendants Wu, Jimenez, and McGuiness;this case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/30/2018. Enenmoh and F. Jimenez terminated. (21-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 246, 272) 17 18 Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 15, 2017, defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 56, arguing that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his available administrative 23 remedies before filing suit as required. (Doc. No. 246.) On August 31, 2018, the assigned 24 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion 25 be granted in part after finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with 26 respect to certain claims. (Doc No. 272.) The findings and recommendations were served on the 27 parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after 28 service. (Id. at 24.) On September 13, 2018, plaintiff timely filed his objections. (Doc. No. 273.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes the 3 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 In his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates arguments raised in his opposition and his 5 prior motion seeking leave to file a sixth amended complaint. Plaintiff does not argue that he 6 exhausted his administrative remedies prior to the filing of this action as required, nor does he 7 effectively respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims the 8 magistrate judge properly determined to be unexhausted. In short, plaintiff’s objections provide 9 no basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 31, 2018 (Doc. No. 272) are 12 13 adopted in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 246) is granted in part and 14 15 denied in part without prejudice; 3. This action now proceeds only on plaintiff’s claims brought against defendants Wu, 16 17 Jimenez, and McGuiness; 4. If defendants intend to file a second motion for summary judgment on the issue of 18 exhaustion of administrative remedies, they are directed to request an evidentiary 19 hearing on that issue within twenty-one days after service of this order; and 20 21 22 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.