(PC) McNeal v. Evert, et al, No. 2:2005cv00441 - Document 158 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 7/5/2013 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 145 are ADOPTED in FULL; Motion 141 for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to defendants J. Ginder, G McCoy, Hooven, Chenoweth, Ervin, Chatham, and C. Barton; and DENIED as to defendants Ervin and Chatham. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PC) McNeal v. Evert, et al Doc. 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VERNON WAYNE McNEAL, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. 2:05-cv-0441 GEB EFB P Defendants. ORDER vs. EVERT, et al., / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On January 18, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither 22 party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The undersigned adopted those 23 findings and recommendations by order filed February 21, 2013. Dckt. No. 146. 24 Thereafter, plaintiff demonstrated that he could not have timely objected to the 25 findings and recommendations despite his diligence. Therefore, on April 4, 2013, the 26 undersigned vacated the February 21, 2013 order and allowed plaintiff 14 days to file objections. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 After an extension of time, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on 2 June 3, 2013. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 4 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 5 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 6 proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 18, 2013 are adopted in full; 9 and 10 2. The August 2, 2012 motion for summary judgment (Dckt. No. 141) filed by 11 defendants Ginder, McCoy, Hooven, Chenoweth, Ervin, Chatham, and Barton is granted as to 12 defendants Ginder, McCoy, Hooven, Chenoweth, and Barton and denied as to defendants Ervin 13 and Chatham. 14 15 So ordered. Dated: July 5, 2013 16 17 18 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.