(PC) Nguyen v. Biter et al, No. 1:2011cv00809 - Document 95 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 94 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Defendant's 79 Motion to Dismiss, DENYING Defendant's Motion to Strike, DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions; ORDER REQUIRING Defendant to File Answer within Thirty Days signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/3/2013. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANTHONY NGUYEN, 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 13 M. D. BITER, Defendant. 14 Case No. 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 15 (Docs. 79, 80, 88, 90, 91, and 94 ) 16 ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 17 _____________________________________/ 18 19 Plaintiff Anthony Nguyen (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 18, 2011. This action 21 is proceeding against Defendant Biter (“Defendant”) for violation of the Eighth Amendment of the 22 United States Constitution. 23 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 25 Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that 26 Objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No Objections 27 were filed. 28 /// 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 3 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on October 16, 2013, is adopted in full; 6 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, filed on March 18, 2013, 7 is DENIED; 8 3. Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply, filed on May 21, 2013, is 9 DENIED as moot; 10 4. Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s reply, filed on May 30, 2013, is DENIED; 11 5. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed on July 5, 2013, is DENIED; and 12 6. Defendant shall file an answer within thirty (30) days from the date of service of 13 this order. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: December 3, 2013 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
