Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00469/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00469-11/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

RONALD DEAN YANDELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT R. JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS 

PREMATURE

(Doc. Nos. 25, 35)

Plaintiff Ronald Dean Yandell is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 16, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 25) be 

“summarily denied, without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings” because 

discovery in this case has not begun and thus, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is 

premature. (Doc. No. 35 at 3–4.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on 

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14)

days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been 

filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 41 Filed 01/09/23 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), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 16, 2022 (Doc. No. 35) 

are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 25) is summarily denied, 

without prejudice, as premature; and

3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 41 Filed 01/09/23 Page 2 of 2