Giles v. San Joaquin Valley Rehabilitation Hospital ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL D. GILES, Case No. 1:21-cv-0732 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING 14 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, et al., COUNSEL 15 Defendants. (Docs. 38, 40 and 43) 16 17 Michael D. Giles seeks to hold San Joaquin Valley Rehabilitation Hospital and parent 18 company Vibra Healthcare, LLC liable for violations of the Equal Pay Act, gender discrimination, 19 age discrimination, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and perjury. (See Doc. 37 at 20 2-4.) The same day as Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, he filed a motion for summary 21 judgment and a motion to appoint counsel. (Docs. 38, 40.) The motions were referred to the 22 assigned magistrate judge. (Doc. 42.) 23 The magistrate judge found the motion for summary judgment was premature, and 24 recommended it be denied without prejudice. (Doc. 43 at 2.) In addition, the magistrate judge 25 observed that Plaintiff did not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel, and the 26 Court was unable, at this time, to find exceptional circumstances exist that would justify the 27 appointment of counsel. (Id. at 2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion to 28 appoint counsel also “be denied without prejudice subject to renewal at a later stage of these 1 | proceedings.” (dd. at 3.) 2 The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained a notice that 3 | any objections were due within 21 days of the date of service. (Doc. 43 at 3.) The parties were also 4 |informed the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 5 | district judge’s order.” (/d. at 4, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) 6 | No objections were filed, and the time to do so expired. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 8 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully 9 |reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the 10 |record and proper analysis. Therefore, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued September 7, 2023 (Doc. 43) are 12 ADOPTED in full. 13 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38) is DENIED without prejudice. 14 3. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 40) is DENIED without 15 prejudice. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g] Dated: _ October 16, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28