(PC) Terhune v. Lizarraga, et al., No. 2:2015cv01738 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/29/2018 ADOPTING 35 Findings and Recommendations in Full; Defendant's 38 Motion for Extension of Time is GRATNED nunc pro tunc. The case shall proceed solely on Plaintiff's Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claim. (Fabillaran, J)
Download PDF
(PC) Terhune v. Lizarraga, et al. Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAMERON R. TERHUNE, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-01738-TLN-DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOE LIZARRAGA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 7, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 35.) On 23 March 19, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for a one-day extension of time to file objections to the 24 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 38) and simultaneously filed objections (ECF No. 39). 25 The Court will grant nunc pro tunc Defendant’s motion for an extension of time. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 27 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 28 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Defendant’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 38) is granted nunc pro tunc; 4 2. The findings and recommendations filed February 7, 2018 (ECF No. 35), are adopted 5 in full; 3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) is granted in part and denied 6 7 in part as follows: a. Defendant’s motion on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 8 9 claim is denied; 10 b. Defendant’s motion on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim is granted; and 11 c. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to qualified immunity 12 is denied. 13 4. Plaintiff’s request to add the unidentified Mule Creek State Prison scheduler as a 14 Defendant in this matter is denied; and 5. The case shall proceed solely on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 15 16 claim. 17 Dated: March 29, 2018 18 19 20 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2