(PC) Samuels v. Adame et al, No. 1:2009cv01320 - Document 65 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 63 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 44 & 50 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/20/2012. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
(PC) Samuels v. Adame et al Doc. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROBERT EARL SAMUELS, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01320-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 63) v. G. ADAME, et al., Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Robert Earl Samuels (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 6, 2012, Defendant Farnsworth 18 filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 44. On February 27, 2012, Defendants G. Adame, 19 P. Gentry, B. Medrano, R. Nicholas, F. Rivera, E. Sailer, and D. Snyder filed a motion for summary 20 judgment. ECF No. 50. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On August 22, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 23 served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and 24 Recommendations was to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 63. No party filed a timely 25 Objection to the Findings and Recommendations. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 28 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 22, 2012, is adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, filed February 6, 2012, and February 4 5 6 7 8 27, 2012, are denied; and 3. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for trial setting proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 September 20, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.