(PC) Hutchins, Jr. v. Lockyer, et al., No. 1:2015cv01537 - Document 80 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 73 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/20/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFTON HUTCHINS, JR., 12 13 14 15 No. 1:15-cv-01537-DAD-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. JOHAL, (Doc. No. 73) Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Clifton Hutchins, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 7, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that defendant Johal’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 59) be granted. 22 (Doc. No. 73.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 23 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 24 20.) On November 19, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 25 recommendations. (Doc. No. 76.) Pursuant to the magistrate judge’s order, defendant filed a 26 response to plaintiff’s objections on November 29, 2021. (Doc. No. 79.) Plaintiff’s objections 27 appear to be identical to his original opposition to defendant’s pending motion for summary 28 judgment. Indeed, the only difference between the two filings is that plaintiff has signed and 1 1 dated his objections, which he failed to do with respect to his opposition. Plaintiff’s arguments 2 were thoroughly and correctly addressed in the pending findings and recommendations; and the 3 conclusion that under the undisputed evidence before the court defendant is entitled to summary 4 judgment on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs is 5 fully supported and appropriate. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 8 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 9 by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. 12 The findings and recommendations issued on October 7, 2021 (Doc. No. 73) are adopted in full; 13 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 59) is granted; and 14 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 20, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.