Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02498/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02498-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BESS, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2498 GEB DAD P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants. 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 General Order No. 262.

On February 16, 2006, 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 ten days. Defendants

have filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and plaintiff has filed a reply.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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.

Case 2:03-cv-02498-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 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

2

The court has considered defendants’ request in the alternative that this matter be

remanded to the magistrate judge with instructions to grant the defendants leave to submit

additional evidence in support of their motion. Under the Local Rules of Practice, a moving

party is required to file “a notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs, affidavits, and copies

of all documentary evidence that the moving party intends to submit in support of the motion.” 

Local Rule 78-230(b). Although the defendants contend that denying them an opportunity to

obtain and submit additional evidence at this time will force them to submit themselves to trial,

the record reflects that the magistrate judge has not yet issued a scheduling order in this case and

further motion practice is not foreclosed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 16, 2006 are adopted in full;

and

2. Defendants’ July 13, 2005 motion for summary judgment is denied.

Dated: March 21, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02498-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 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

3

/bess2498.806

Case 2:03-cv-02498-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 3