Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00217/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00217-7/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

1

 Defendants have filed an opposition to the motion, and plaintiff a reply, all of which the

court has reviewed before issuing these findings and recommendations.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SLAUGHTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0217 DFL KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two matters are before the court.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment

On January 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.1 Plaintiff

makes no argument in support of his motion. He simply asks that summary judgment be entered

based on exhibits attached to the motion. This is not a proper request. Under summary judgment

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00217-DFL -KJM Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

 Defendants are employees of the Sacramento County Jail. A review of the court’s

records indicates that plaintiff was transferred from the Sacramento County Jail to the California

Department of Corrections in January of 2004. See docket entry #13. 

2

practice, the moving party 

always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)); see also Order

filed Dec. 7, 2004 (explaining summary judgment procedures). Plaintiff has not met his burden

under Celotex. He has not informed the court why he should be granted summary judgment nor

demonstrated the absence of genuine issues of material fact. The court will recommend that

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s June 12, 2006 Motion To Compel

Plaintiff has filed a motion asking that the court order defendants to provide

plaintiff with all of his medical records dated between April 21, 2001 and December 1, 2004. 

Counsel for defendants filed a response, and supporting affidavit, indicating that defendants have

provided plaintiff with all medical records in their possession.2 Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to

compel will be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 12,

2006 motion to compel is denied; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s January 3, 2006 motion for

summary judgment be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

Case 2:03-cv-00217-DFL -KJM Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: July 13, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

slau0217.57

Case 2:03-cv-00217-DFL -KJM Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 Page 3 of 3