(PC) Hood v. Mims et al, No. 1:2013cv00108 - Document 59 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 58 Findings and Recommendations, DENYING Defendant's 48 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/18/17. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ALBERT LEE HOOD, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 CHUNA, 12 Defendant. 13 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-00108-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 48, 58) 15 Plaintiff Albert Lee Hood is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. 16 This case currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Adleno Cunha, Jr., for deliberate 17 indifference to his serious medical needs.1 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On January 6, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 48.) On 20 August 28, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations 21 recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 58.) Those 22 Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained a notice that any objections 23 were to be filed within fourteen days. Over fourteen days have passed, and no objections were filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 26 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 28 1 Defendant Cunha was erroneously sued as “Chuna.” 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 28, 2017, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 48) is denied; and 4 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings 5 consistent with this order. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ September 18, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
