(PC) Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, No. 1:2013cv00421 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 37 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 20 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or Based on Qualified Immunity; and ORDER Requiring Defendant to File Answer Within Thirty (30) Days signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/22/2014. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G. J. GUTIERREZ, 12 13 14 15 1:13-cv-00421-LJO-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 37.) vs. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OR BASED ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (Doc. 20.) A. GUTIERREZ, Defendant. 16 17 ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 18 19 20 G. J. Gutierrez (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On September 17, 2014, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 24 that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied. 25 opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. To date, 26 no objections have been filed. (Doc. 20.) The parties were granted an 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 28 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 1 1 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 2 analysis. 3 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1. 5 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on September 17, 2014, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed on June 5, 2014, is DENIED; 7 3. Defendant is required to file an Answer to the Complaint within thirty days of 8 9 the date of service of this order; and 4. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill October 22, 2014 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.
