Opinion
Case No.: 1:09-cv-00771- LJO - JLT
08-28-2012
LEON HAWKINS, Plaintiff, v. DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. 75)
Defendant Castillo ("Defendant") requests summary judgment and dismissal of the action pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 68). On August 10, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended Defendant's motion be denied, finding "Defendant failed to meet his initial burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." (Doc. 75 at 7).
The Findings and Recommendations contained a notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days of service, or by August 24, 2012. (Doc. 75 at 7). Defendant was advised failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Id. at 7-8. Nevertheless, Defendant did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the motion for summary judgment be denied.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis. There is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Plaintiff's actions, which "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1422, 1436 (9 th Cir. 1987). Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 10, 2012 (Doc. 75), are ADOPTED IN FULL; and
2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 68) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE