From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petillo v. Jasso

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 4, 2022
1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC)

10-04-2022

ISAIAH J. PETILLO, Plaintiff, v. REYNALDO JASSO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 32) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 29)

The assigned magistrate judge made findings and recommended that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice because, among other things, the motion does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) or Local Rule 260(a). (Doc. 32.) Plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 33.)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter-including Plaintiff's objections-the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. In his objections, Plaintiff concedes that he did not file a statement of undisputed fact. Instead, he attached “material facts” in the form of documents, sworn statements, and transcripts. (Doc. 33 at 1-3.) However, the statement of undisputed facts required by this Court's local rules serves many purposes, including directing the opposing party and the Court to specific information on which a party is relying and which that party claims is undisputed. Filing supporting evidence to support the material facts is required but is not a substitute for identifying the specific material facts at issue. The filing is not optional. Accordingly,

Plaintiff is advised that a motion under Rule 56 can be granted only if there the evidence demonstrates there is no dispute of material fact. If there is evidence that gives rise to a dispute of material fact, the motion must be denied. Before refiling his motion, Plaintiff should consider whether considering all of the evidence, there can be no dispute of material fact.

1. The findings and recommendations dated September 13, 2022 (Doc. 32) are ADOPTED in full.
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed on September 9, 2022 (Doc. 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Petillo v. Jasso

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 4, 2022
1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022)
Case details for

Petillo v. Jasso

Case Details

Full title:ISAIAH J. PETILLO, Plaintiff, v. REYNALDO JASSO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 4, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022)