(PC) Green v. Nangalama, et al, No. 2:2013cv02390 - Document 50 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER denying signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 09/28/18. The findings and recommendations filed September 13, 2017 [ECF 40] ADOPTED as to all conclusions except those pertaining to qualified immunity; Defendant's summary judgment motion [ECF No. 32] GRANTED; Plaintiff's summary judgment motion [ECF No. 30] DENIED; Defendant's motion to strike [ECF No. 47] DENIED;Enter judgment for defendant and close this case. (Andrews, P)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Green v. Nangalama, et al Doc. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LONZELL GREEN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-2390-KJM-CMK-P v. ORDER ANDREW NANGALAMA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 Eastern District of California local rules. On September 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 20 21 (“F&Rs”), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 22 objections within a specified time. F&Rs, ECF No. 40. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings 23 and recommendations. ECF No. 44. Defendants responded. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff then, without 24 permission, filed an objection to defendant’s response. ECF No. 46. Defendant has since moved 25 to strike plaintiff’s second objection. ECF No. 47. Plaintiff opposed the motion to strike. ECF 26 No. 48. The court is persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that he is entitled to the benefits of the 27 mailbox rule, and therefore considers plaintiff’s objections here. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having independently reviewed 3 the file and relevant authority, the court has determined that based on this record, no reasonable 4 juror could find defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs. The court 5 therefore adopts the findings and recommendations as to this conclusion. See id. at 16. Because 6 the court need not reach the question of qualified immunity, the court declines to adopt the 7 portion of the findings and recommendations addressing qualified immunity. Id. at 16-19. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 13, 2017 (ECF No. 40), 10 are ADOPTED as to all conclusions except those pertaining to qualified 11 immunity; 12 2. Defendant’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED; 13 3. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 30) is DENIED; 14 4. Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 47) is DENIED; 15 5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for defendant and 16 17 close this case. DATED: September 28, 2018. 18 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
