Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00460/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00460-13/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

YUJUAN L. BANKS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.C. REGENTS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0460 TLN KJN 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 February 12, 2016, 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. (ECF No. 64.) The 

magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ summary judgment motion be granted. (ECF 

No. 64.) On May 9, 2016, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations, observing 

that plaintiff had not filed objections, and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 67, 68.) 

However, on April 26, 2016, pursuant to the mailbox rule, plaintiff filed timely 

objections.1 (ECF No. 70.) The Court was not aware of the objections at the time the May 9, 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s objections are court stamp filed May 9, 2016. (ECF No. 70.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00460-TLN-KJN Document 75 Filed 07/22/16 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

2016 order was entered. Accordingly, on May 27, 2016, the Court vacated the May 9, 2016 order 

and judgment. (ECF No. 71.) In the May 27, 2016 order, the Court deemed plaintiff’s objections 

timely and granted defendants fourteen days to file a reply to plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 

71.) On June 10, 2016, defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 73.)

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.

On June 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the vacated May 9, 2016 judgment. 

(ECF No. 72.) Because the judgment was vacated, plaintiff’s appeal will not be processed. 

Plaintiff may refile a notice of appeal of the instant order and accompanying entry of judgment.

 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal (ECF No. 72) will not be processed because the judgment 

plaintiff seeks to appeal has been vacated;

2. The findings and recommendations filed February 12, 2016 are adopted in full; and

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 53) is granted.

Dated: July 21, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-00460-TLN-KJN Document 75 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 2