Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01565/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01565-12/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Dr, W. KOKOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-1565-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON 

PROCEDURAL GROUNDS

(Doc. 62)

Plaintiff, Arthur T. Bussiere, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 27, 2013. The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Fist Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) against 

Defendants W. Kokor, M.D., N. Hashemi, M.D., and A. Tiggs-Brown, P.A., for deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment. (See Doc. 14.) 

On February 16, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. 51.) However, they failed to concurrently serve 

Plaintiff with the requisite notice of the requirements for opposing/responding to their motion

pursuant to Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 

952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff nevertheless filed an opposition. (See Docs. 55, 56, 57.) 

On June 6, 2016, without engaging in harmless error analysis, the Magistrate Judge issued a 

Findings and Recommendations to deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment without 

prejudice to refiling with the requisite notice to Plaintiff, which was served that same date and 

Case 1:13-cv-01565-SKO Document 72 Filed 07/26/16 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

gave fifteen days for the parties to file objections. (Doc. 62.) Despite lapse of more than the 

allowed time, no objections have been filed. 

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, the Court finds the 

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on June 6, 2016 (Doc. 62), is adopted in 

full; 

2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed on February 16, 2016 (Doc. 51), is 

denied without prejudice to refiling, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of 

this order, with proof of notice to Plaintiff of the requirements to adequately 

oppose/respond to a motion for summary judgment as required by Woods v. Carey, 

684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th 

Cir. 1998); and 

3. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of Defendants’ refiled motion, 

Plaintiff shall either file a new opposition/response in accordance with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56, or a notice that he desires to stand on the opposition he previously 

filed (see Docs. 55, 56, 57). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01565-SKO Document 72 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 2