Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214-25/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS K. MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZACHERY JONES, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-1214 JLT SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 68, 69)

Thomas K. Mills asserts the defendants violated his civil rights during Plaintiff’s 

incarceration at North Kern State Prison and moved for summary judgment on his claims. (Doc. 

55.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s fourth motion for summary judgment was premature 

because “Defendants have not had sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery as it was just 

opened on April 10, 2024.” (Doc. 69 at 2, citing Doc. 51.) In addition, the magistrate judge found 

the motion was “procedurally deficient,” because Plaintiff did not prepare “a separate statement 

of undisputed facts as required by Local Rule 260(a).” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 

recommended the motion be denied without prejudice. (Id. at 3.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 

any objections were to be filed within 14 days after service. (Doc. 57 at 3.) The Court advised 

Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) 

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 71 Filed 07/02/24 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

Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 10, 2024 (Doc. 69) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s fourth motion for summary judgment filed on June 10, 2024 (Doc. 68) 

is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 71 Filed 07/02/24 Page 2 of 2