(PC) Hamilton v. Hart et al, No. 1:2010cv00272 - Document 78 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 75 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING 41 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/18/2016. (Filing Deadline: 9/21/2016). (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENNIS L. HAMILTON, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JOHN HART et al., (Doc. No. 75) Defendants. 16 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17 (Doc. No. 41) 18 ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff Dennis L. Hamilton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 23 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 On March 21, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 26 recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. No. 75.) On 27 April 20, 2016, defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 76.) 28 On May 5, 2016, plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. No. 77.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 including defendants’ objections and plaintiff’s reply, the court finds the findings and 4 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, 6 1. The March 21, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 75) are adopted in full; 7 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 41) is denied; 8 3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, defendants shall file an 9 answer to the complaint; and 10 11 12 4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 18, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.