Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00362/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00362-9/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENITO REYES,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

ROSE MARTINEZ and

CHINYERE NYENKE,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND OF 

CASE FROM NINTH CIRCUIT AFTER 

INDICATIVE RULING

(ECF No. 55.)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 47.)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 37.)

ORDER ENTERING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS

MARTINEZ AND NYENKE

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

Benito Reyes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action 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 September 1, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 

that Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 47.) The 

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 58 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 3
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

parties were granted thirty days in which to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (Id.) On September 28, 2015, the Court adopted the findings and 

recommendations, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and closing the case. 

(ECF No. 48.) Also on September 28, 2015, after the judgment had been entered, Plaintiff’s 

objections to the findings and recommendations were filed by the Court. (ECF No. 50.)

On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. (ECF No. 51.) In the appeal, Plaintiff asserts that he filed timely objections to the 

findings and recommendations, but the District Judge prematurely adopted the findings and 

recommendations on September 28, 2015, without considering Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff 

speculates that the District Judge mistakenly believed the parties were only given twenty days 

to file objections, and issued the final order before the thirty-day deadline had expired. 

On November 12, 2015, this Court issued an order, requesting remand of this case by 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1, based 

on the Court’s discovery that the Court had entered judgment and closed the case prematurely. 

The Court sought to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, reopen the case, and reconsider Defendants’ amended motion for summary 

judgment, taking into consideration Plaintiff’s timely filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations. 

On December 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals granted the request for remand after the

indicative ruling, remanding the case to the district court for the purpose of granting relief from 

the judgment. (ECF No. 55.) On December 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued its formal 

mandate. (ECF No. 57.) 

This case has been reopened. 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, including Plaintiff’s timely filed objections, the Court finds 

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

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 58 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

September 1, 2015, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment, filed on January 22, 2015, 

is GRANTED; and

3. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and enter judgment in favor of 

defendants Martinez and Nyenke.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 58 Filed 04/04/16 Page 3 of 3