Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00272/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00272-15/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS L. HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN HART et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 75)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. No. 41)

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Dennis L. Hamilton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 21, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. No. 75.) On 

April 20, 2016, defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 76.) 

On May 5, 2016, plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. No. 77.)

Case 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG Document 78 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including defendants’ objections and plaintiff’s reply, the court finds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The March 21, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 75) are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 41) is denied; 

3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, defendants shall file an 

answer to the complaint; and 

4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG Document 78 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 2