(PC) Bullard v. St. Andra et al, No. 1:2017cv00328 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 43 ; ORDER VACATING August 29, 2018 Order Adopting 46 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/30/2018: Plaintiff's request (Doc. No. 33 ) to vacate the protective order staying discovery (Doc. No. 29 ) is granted; and Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 41 ) to vacate the present discovery and scheduling order (Doc. No. 22 ) is granted. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EFREN DANIELLE BULLARD, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 v. Case No. 1:17-cv-0328 LJO JDP (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; R. ST. ANDRA, et al., (Doc. No. 43) Defendant. ORDER VACATING AUGUST 29, 2018 ORDER ADOPTING (Doc. No. 46) 18 19 Plaintiff Efren Danielle Bullard is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 21 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 16, 2018, Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 56, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 24 23.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 33), and Defendants filed a reply on 25 April 17, 2018 (Doc No. 35.) On August 17, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that 26 Defendants’ motion be denied, in its entirety. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the 27 protective order staying all discovery (Doc. No. 29) be vacated and that Defendants’ motion (Doc. 28 1 1 No. 41) to vacate the present discovery and scheduling order (Doc. No. 22) be granted. The findings 2 and recommendations was served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the 3 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. Defendants timely 4 filed objections on August 28, 2018. (Doc. No. 45.) 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 6 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 7 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The 8 objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations. 9 On August 29, 2018, this Court issued an order adopting the findings and 10 recommendations that contained typographic and/or clerical errors. Accordingly, that order is 11 VACATED. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The Court’s August 29, 2018 order (Doc. No. 46) is VACATED; 14 2. The findings and recommendations issued on August 17, 2018, are adopted in full; 15 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on February 16, 2018, (Doc. No. 16 17 23) is denied; 4. 18 19 Plaintiff’s request (Doc. No. 33) to vacate the protective order staying discovery (Doc. No. 29) is granted; and 5. 20 Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 41) to vacate the present discovery and scheduling order (Doc. No. 22) is granted. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ August 30, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.