From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nguyen v. Biter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 3, 2013
Case No. 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO PC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO PC

12-03-2013

ANTHONY NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. M. D. BITER, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS,

DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

STRIKE, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO STRIKE, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS


(Docs. 79, 80, 88, 90, 91, and 94 )


ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO

FILE ANSWER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Anthony Nguyen ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 18, 2011. This action is proceeding against Defendant Biter ("Defendant") for violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

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 October 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that Objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No Objections were filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 on October 16, 2013, is adopted in full;

2. Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, filed on March 18, 2013, is DENIED;

3. Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's surreply, filed on May 21, 2013, is DENIED as moot;

4. Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's reply, filed on May 30, 2013, is DENIED;

5. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, filed on July 5, 2013, is DENIED; and

6. Defendant shall file an answer within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Nguyen v. Biter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 3, 2013
Case No. 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO PC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013)
Case details for

Nguyen v. Biter

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. M. D. BITER, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 3, 2013

Citations

Case No. 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO PC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013)