(PC) Anderson v. United States of America et al, No. 1:2016cv00352 - Document 61 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 59 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Defendants' 55 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/30/19. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS ANDERSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:16-cv-00352-DAD-SAB v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 55, 59) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Curtis Anderson is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302. On August 8, 2018, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 55.) On 22 23 November 28, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 24 recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. No. 59.) The 25 findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 26 objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days after service. (Id. at 12.) Defendant filed 27 objections on December 21, 2018. (Doc. No. 60.) 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 2 conducted a de novo review of the case. In the undersigned’s view, defendant’s objections do not 3 raise any argument not already adequately considered and appropriately rejected in the pending 4 findings and recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including defendant’s 5 objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by 6 the record and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly: 8 1. 9 The findings and recommendations issued on November 28, 2018 (Doc. No. 59) are adopted in full; 10 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 55) is denied; and 11 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 12 13 14 15 proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.