Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00003-12/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

JOEY ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SILVA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00003-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. No. 31)

Plaintiff Joey Alvarez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

brought 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 November 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 30) 

filed on October 30, 2019 be denied. (Doc. No. 31.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that 

plaintiff’s motion “is wholly defective in that [he] . . . simply filed a single page requesting 

summary judgment” and that he therefore did not carry his burden, as the party moving for 

summary judgment. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 

contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) 

No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.

Case 1:19-cv-00003-DAD-SAB Document 42 Filed 01/13/20 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, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 5, 2019 (Doc. No. 31) are 

adopted; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed on October 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 30) 

is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00003-DAD-SAB Document 42 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2