(PC) Hill v. Rios ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:18-cv-3089 MCE AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 27, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff 23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations as well as a motion for reconsideration. 24 ECF Nos. 38, 39. Because the motions were filed the same day,1 and because plaintiff’s 25 1 See ECF No. 38 at 1 (showing September 29, 2022, as signature date of plaintiff’s objections). See also ECF No. 39 at 9 (showing September 29, 2022, as signature date of plaintiff’s motion for 26 reconsideration). The signing date of a pleading is the earliest possible filing date pursuant to the 27 mailbox rule. See Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 769 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating constructive filing date for prisoner giving pleading to prison authorities is date pleading is 28 signed); Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds 1 || objections filing provides no substantive argument (see generally ECF No. 38) (statement of non- 2 || consent with undersigned’s findings and recommendations attached), the Court construes 3 || plaintiff's motion for reconsideration as additional objections to the magistrate’s findings and 4 | recommendations. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 6 || Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 7 || Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 8 | analysis. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The Clerk of Court shall edit docket entry ECF No. 39 to read “Additional Objections 11 || to Findings and Recommendations (Motion for Reconsideration)” and remove the gavel icon next 12 || to it; 13 2. The findings and recommendations issued September 27, 2022 (ECF No. 37), are 14 | ADOPTED in full; 15 3. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 31) is DENIED, and 16 4. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36) is DENIED as premature. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: November 21, 2022 Eo 19 { late rf LEK. °° SENIOR UNITED STATES UR SRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 | by Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005).