Opinion
2:21-cv-02049-DAD-AC
02-12-2023
ERIC ANTHONY ALSTON, JR., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 18, 25)
Plaintiff Eric Anthony Alston, Jr., proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on November 5, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 30, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 18) be denied because plaintiff's conclusory factual statements were not supported by competent, undisputed evidence, and material factual disputes preclude the granting of summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's claims. (Doc. No. 25.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 15.) On October 3, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 26.) Defendants filed a response thereto but did not file objections of their own. (Doc. No. 27.)
In his objections, plaintiff reiterates the arguments that he had presented in his motion for summary judgment and that the magistrate judge already rejected in the findings and recommendations, explaining that “plaintiff proffers insufficient undisputed evidence to warrant summary judgment in his favor.” (Doc. No. 25 at 14.) However, as defendants note in their response to plaintiff's objections, plaintiff does not acknowledge that material facts are disputed and that the record before the court on summary judgment is insufficient to find in his favor as a matter of law. (Doc. No. 27.) Rather, plaintiff restates his version of the facts in conclusory fashion and maintains that the magistrate judge has erred. (Doc. No. 26.) Despite the prior explanations the court has given to plaintiff regarding the proper purpose and scope of summary judgment (see Doc. No. 25 at 6), it appears that plaintiff continues to misunderstand the legal standard that applies to motion for summary judgment. As the findings and recommendations explain, denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment does not mean that plaintiff will not have the opportunity to prove his claims at trial, or that defendants have now prevailed in this case. To the contrary, plaintiff's motion is being denied because there are disputed material facts, and thus this case will proceed to a jury trial at which the jury will resolve factual disputes. Indeed, this case is currently set for jury trial on November 27, 2023. (See Doc. No. 16.) Accordingly, plaintiff's objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections and defendants' response, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 30, 2022 (Doc. No. 25) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 18) is denied; and
3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.