Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-34/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 191, 194, 229, 247)

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in 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 November 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations, which

recommended that (1) Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice be denied (ECF No. 194); (2) Plaintiff’s

request to supplement his motion for summary judgment be granted (ECF No. 229); and (3)

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied (ECF No. 191). The Court has considered

Plaintiff’s extensive objections to the Findings and Recommendation filed on December 26, 2012. 

(ECF No. 254.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis.

///

1

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 270 Filed 03/01/13 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on November 19, 2012, are adopted in

full; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s request to supplement his motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

and

4. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill B9ed48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 270 Filed 03/01/13 Page 2 of 2