Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02103/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02103-24/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

VINCENTE SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. NEGRETE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-2103 WBS AC P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 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 August 19, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.1 

 

1

The objections are focused largely on defendant Tate’s previously adjudicated motion for 

summary judgment. Plaintiff continues to complain that the court did not permit him adequate 

time to respond to that motion, notwithstanding that plaintiff had failed to file an opposition more 

than six months after the motion was filed, despite having been granted a number of extensions of 

time. He briefly interposes objections to the pending findings and recommendations as well and 

seeks more time to do so despite the magistrate judge’s explicit caution that there would be no 

extension to file objections in this matter. Any motion for an extension of time is insufficiently 

Case 2:10-cv-02103-WBS-AC Document 150 Filed 09/23/14 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)(C) 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 by proper 

analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 19, 2014, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of the proceedings, ECF No. 142, is denied;

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 121, is granted and judgment is 

entered for defendants.

Dated: September 22, 2014

/solo2103.805(2)

 

supported and is denied. 

Case 2:10-cv-02103-WBS-AC Document 150 Filed 09/23/14 Page 2 of 2