Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01058-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Ralph Garbarini is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 

Recommendation which was served on the parties and contained notice that objections to the Findings 

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on April 4, 2016, 

and Defendants filed a response on April 13, 2016. Local Rule 304(b), (d).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis. Plaintiff’s objections simply reiterate the arguments made in his motion for summary 

judgment. No basis exists to depart from the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

RALPH GARBARINI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WAYNE ULIT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[ECF Nos. 59, 70]

Case 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB Document 77 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on March 10, 2016, is adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB Document 77 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 2