(PC) Washington v. Gamboa, et al., No. 1:2017cv00302 - Document 58 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 49 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Defendants' 44 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/11/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE WASHINGTON, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-00302-LJO-EPG Plaintiff, v. H. GAMBOA, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. (ECF Nos. 44, 49) 16 17 18 Plaintiff, Jesse Washington, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations 22 (ECF No. 49), recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44) be 23 denied. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 24 any objections were due within fourteen days. (ECF No. 49.) On August 30, 2019, defendants 25 timely filed objections. (ECF No. 53.) 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 27 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 28 including defendants’ objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 1 1 supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, 3 1. 4 5 6 adopted in full; and 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 8 The findings and recommendations entered on August 19, 2019 (ECF No. 49) are /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ September 11, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 9 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.