Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02942/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02942-16/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 

MICHAEL LENIOR SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2942 KJM 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 as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On September 7, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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. 60. Plaintiff has 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 63. He claims defendants did not 

offer evidence to show a genuine dispute of fact. Id. However, in defendants’ opposition to 

plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, their statement of disputed facts cites to incident 

reports by the officers, which were included with the opposition as Exhibit A to the Mejia 

Declaration. See ECF No. 54-2. 

Case 2:18-cv-02942-KJM-AC Document 70 Filed 12/15/22 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 reviewed the file, the court finds the 

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

Plaintiff has also filed objections to the September 28, 2022 order denying his motion to 

compel discovery. ECF No. 66. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to object 

to non-dispositive orders issued by magistrate judges and requires that the district judge “modify 

or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” The 

September 28, 2022 order of the magistrate judge is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and 

the objections will be overruled. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 7, 2022 (ECF No. 60) are adopted

in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 48) is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s objections to the September 28, 2022 order denying his motion to compel

(ECF No. 63) are OVERRULED and the September 28, 2022 order is AFFIRMED; and 

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

proceedings. 

DATED: December 14, 2022. 

Case 2:18-cv-02942-KJM-AC Document 70 Filed 12/15/22 Page 2 of 2