Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00800/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00800-14/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

VIRGIL E. HOLT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. NICHOLAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE 

DENIED

(ECF NO. 79, 86)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS

Currently pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by 

Defendants in the above-captioned matter. (ECF No. 79.) The deadline for filing dispositive 

motions in this case was April 17, 2012. (ECF No. 59.) Defendants filed their motion for 

summary judgment on June 11, 2012. (ECF No. 79.) Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is 

untimely and the Court will recommend that it be denied.

On August 1, 2012, Defendants filed a request for supplemental briefing for their motion 

for summary judgment. (ECF No. 86.) Since the Court recommends that Defendants’ motion be 

denied as untimely, the Court further recommends that Defendants’ request for supplemental 

briefing be denied as moot.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 110 Filed 02/12/13 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be DENIED as untimely (ECF No. 

79); and

2. Defendants’ request for supplemental briefing be DENIED as moot (ECF No. 86).

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

14 days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and 

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s 

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

i1eed4

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 110 Filed 02/12/13 Page 2 of 2