Opinion
Case No. 1:13-cv-1565-AWI-SKO (PC)
07-25-2016
ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE, Plaintiff, v. Dr, W. KOKOR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS
(Doc. 62)
Plaintiff, Arthur T. Bussiere, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 27, 2013. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's Fist Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) against Defendants W. Kokor, M.D., N. Hashemi, M.D., and A. Tiggs-Brown, P.A., for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment. (See Doc. 14.)
On February 16, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. 51.) However, they failed to concurrently serve Plaintiff with the requisite notice of the requirements for opposing/responding to their motion pursuant to Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff nevertheless filed an opposition. (See Docs. 55, 56, 57.) On June 6, 2016, without engaging in harmless error analysis, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations to deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice to refiling with the requisite notice to Plaintiff, which was served that same date and gave fifteen days for the parties to file objections. (Doc. 62.) Despite lapse of more than the allowed time, no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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, issued on June 6, 2016 (Doc. 62), is adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 25, 2016
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed on February 16, 2016 (Doc. 51), is denied without prejudice to refiling, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order, with proof of notice to Plaintiff of the requirements to adequately oppose/respond to a motion for summary judgment as required by Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998); and
3. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of Defendants' refiled motion, Plaintiff shall either file a new opposition/response in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, or a notice that he desires to stand on the opposition he previously filed (see Docs. 55, 56, 57).
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE