(PC) Meredith v. Overley et al, No. 1:2012cv00455 - Document 72 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 69 Findings and Recommendations to: (1) DENY Defendants' 56 Motion for Summary Judgment, (2) DENY Defendants' 62 Motion to Strike, and (3) DENY Plaintiff's 63 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/29/2014. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 DWAYNE MEREDITH, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 Case No. 1:12-cv-0455-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 69) TO: v. (1) DENY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 56), D. OVERLY, et al., (2) DENY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF No. 62), AND Defendants. 16 17 (3) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 63) 18 19 CASE TO REMAIN OPEN 20 21 22 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 23 rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 5 & 8.) The matter was 24 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 25 Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 26 On December 4, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 27 Recommendations to deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, deny 28 1 Defendants’ motion to strike, and deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF 2 No. 69.) No objections were filed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has 4 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by 6 proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 69), filed 8 December 4, 2014, in full; 9 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 56), filed June 13, 10 2014, is DENIED; 11 3. Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 62), filed July 18, 2014, is DENIED 12 as moot; and 13 4. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 63), filed July 21, 2014, 14 is DENIED. 15 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill December 29, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.