(PC) Nieto v. Gordon ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN M. NIETO, Case No. 1:20-cv-00291-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN 13 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS 14 WARDEN GORDON, et al., (Doc. 67) 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND 16 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17 (Docs. 47, 66) 18 Clerk of Court to close the case. 19 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 52, 53.) Because the plaintiff 20 had not responded to the motion, the Court ordered him to respond to the MSJ within thirty days 21 by filing of an opposition or statement of non-opposition. (Doc. 56). Instead, Plaintiff filed a 22 document titled, “TO RESPONSE ON (GSA) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ALSO TO WHOM THE 23 COURT CONCERNS.” (Doc. 59.) Because the filing did not address issues of fact and law 24 raised in the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court did not construe the filing as 25 a response. 26 On March 22, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 27 to grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 52), which was deemed unopposed. 1 undisputed and the supporting declarations unchallenged. The evidence demonstrated Plaintiff 2 failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the complaint. Additionally, Defendants 3 established they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s claims of Eighth 4 Amendment excessive force, failure to protect, and medical indifference. (Id.) Ultimately, the 5 magistrate judge recommended granting the motion for summary judgment on the latter ground. 6 (Id. at 9.) 7 Under the prison mailbox rule,1 Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to object 8 to the findings and recommendations on March 30, 2023 (the date he memorialized as having 9 signed the motion), which was docketed by the Clerk of Court on April 11, 2023. (Doc. 67.) On 10 April 5, 2023, Plaintiff signed and transmitted objections to the findings and recommendations 11 (which also were docketed on April 11, 2023). (Doc. 68.) On April 28, 2023, Defendants filed a 12 response in opposition to Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and objections based on 13 untimeliness of the filings. (Doc. 70.) Because the findings and recommendations were filed and 14 served on March 22, 2023, and Plaintiff’s objections were filed on April 5, 2023, Plaintiff’s 15 objections were timely filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (extending service time by three days 16 where service is made by mail). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is 17 denied as moot. (Doc. 67.) 18 The Court has construed the pro se pleading liberally and viewed any inferences drawn 19 from the underlying facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. Upon 20 review, the objections, which are highly convoluted, do not undermine the magistrate judge’s 21 reasoning and conclusions. 22 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this 23 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds 24 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Defendants 25 have demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that they are entitled to 26 27 1 Under the prison mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pleadings are deemed to be filed as of the date the prisoner delivered it to the prison authorities for mailing to the court clerk. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 2009) (mailbox rule articulated in Houston 1 | judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed on March 22, 2023 (Doc. 66), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL. 4 2. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file objections to the findings and 5 recommendations (Doc. 67) is DENIED AS MOOT. 6 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 47) is GRANTED. 7 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: _ May 15, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28