McNeal v. Evert

Full title: VERNON WAYNE McNEAL, Plaintiff, v. EVERT, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 5, 2013

2:05-cv-0441 GEB EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 5, 2013)

Opinion

VERNON WAYNE McNEAL, Plaintiff, v. EVERT, et al., Defendants. No. 2:05-cv-0441 GEB EFB P. United States District Court, E.D. California. July 5, 2013.

          ORDER

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

         On January 18, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The undersigned adopted those findings and recommendations by order filed February 21, 2013. Dckt. No. 146.

         Thereafter, plaintiff demonstrated that he could not have timely objected to the findings and recommendations despite his diligence. Therefore, on April 4, 2013, the undersigned vacated the February 21, 2013 order and allowed plaintiff 14 days to file objections. After an extension of time, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on June 3, 2013.

         In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. The findings and recommendations filed January 18, 2013 are adopted in full; and

         2. The August 2, 2012 motion for summary judgment (Dckt. No. 141) filed by defendants Ginder, McCoy, Hooven, Chenoweth, Ervin, Chatham, and Barton is granted as to defendants Ginder, McCoy, Hooven, Chenoweth, and Barton and denied as to defendants Ervin and Chatham.

         So ordered.