(PC) Montenegro v. Moore et al, No. 1:2019cv00430 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 33 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 32 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/21/2020. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN MONTENEGRO, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:19-cv-00430-DAD-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, v. DAVID MOORE, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 32, 33) 17 18 Plaintiff Juan Montenegro is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 23, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice. (Doc. 23 No. 33.) As the magistrate judge noted, discovery only commenced in this action on December 4, 24 2019, and defendants have not been provided the opportunity to complete discovery and obtain 25 information necessary to oppose plaintiff’s motion. (Id.) Moreover, plaintiff’s motion does not 26 comply with Local Rule 260(a), as it fails to include a Statement of Undisputed Facts 27 enumerating the evidence on which plaintiff is relying for his motion for summary judgment. 28 (See Doc. No. 32.) The findings and recommendations were served on both parties and contained 1 1 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) No 2 objections have been filed and the time to do so has now passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 6 analysis. 7 Accordingly: 8 1. adopted in full; 9 10 2. 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 13 14 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed on January 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 32) is denied without prejudice; and 11 12 The findings and recommendations filed on January 23, 2020 (Doc. No. 33) are IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: April 21, 2020 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.