(PC) Anderson v. Becerra et al, No. 1:2020cv00068 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 7 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/8/2020. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEWIS ANDERSON, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, v. XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General for the State of California, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 7, 11) 17 18 Plaintiff Lewis Anderson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 6, 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. 11.) As the magistrate judge noted in those findings and recommendations, this action only 24 commenced on January 14, 2020, and a motion for summary judgment filed pre-answer and pre- 25 discovery will usually be judged premature, even if in technical compliance with Federal Rule of 26 Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. No. 11 at 2.) Moreover, plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with Local 27 Rule 260(a), as it does not contain a Statement of Undisputed Facts that enumerates the evidence 28 on which plaintiff is relying for his motion. The findings and recommendations were served on 1 1 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 2 days after service. (Id. at 3.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has 3 passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 5 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 6 court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 7 analysis. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. 10 11 adopted in full; 2. 12 13 16 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 7) is denied without prejudice; and 3. 14 15 The findings and recommendations issued on February 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 8, 2020 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.
