(PC) Price v. Sherman ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDMUND PAUL PRICE, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-0131 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. ) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ) 14 ALVARADO, et al., ) (Doc. 79) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Edmond Paul Price seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights he 18 suffered while he was incarcerated at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran. (See 19 generally Doc. 1.) Defendants seek the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that Price failed to comply with the Court’s orders and has not 21 provided Court-ordered discovery responses. (Doc. 68.) 22 On March 2, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge observed that Price asserted “his mail 23 regarding this case is not being processed properly.” (Doc. 79 at 4.) For example, the magistrate 24 judge noted: “[Price] contends that he has sent responses to Defendants’ discovery responses, has filed 25 a motion to compel with the Court, and has not received several documents regarding this case.” (Id.) 26 Upon reviewing the record, the magistrate judge found that “the Court is unable to determine that 27 Plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery responses and comply with the Court’s orders was willful, in 28 bad faith, or due to circumstances within his control.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 1 recommended the motion for sanctions be denied. (Ud. at 5.) 2 The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties on March 2, 2023 and it 3 || notified the parties that any objections were to be filed within 14 days after service. (Doc. 79 at 5, 6.) 4 || In addition, the parties were informed the “failure to file objections within the specified time may 5 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (d. at 6, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 6 || (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) No party filed objections, 7 || and the time to do so has expired. 8 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 9 || Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 10 || are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 2, 2023 (Doc. 79), are 12 ADOPTED in full. 13 2. Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Doc. 68), is DENIED. 14 3. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 15 16 IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: _ March 22, 2023 ( LAW pA LU. wan 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28