Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00257/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00257-21/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

MICHANN MEADOWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

REEVES, M.D.,

Defendants.

No. 1:11-cv-00257-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 74, 83)

Plaintiff, Michann Meadows, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing her 

original complaint in this court on February 14, 2011. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 

October 1, 2012, plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint, now the operative complaint,

claiming that defendant Reeves sexually assaulted her during a gynecological examination on 

July 22, 2009, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 28.)

On May 12, 2015, defendant Reeves filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that 

rather than assaulting plaintiff, he was merely attempting to perform an endometrial biopsy. 

(Doc. No. 74.) On December 30, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied

because the evidence presented by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary 

Case 1:11-cv-00257-JLT Document 84 Filed 03/08/16 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

judgment, including plaintiff’s own declaration, established that a triable issue of material fact 

exists. (Doc. No. 83.) Those Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and 

contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) Despite lapse of more 

than the allowed time, no objections were filed. See Local Rule 304(b), (d).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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, based upon the foregoing:

1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. No. 83), filed on December 30, 2015, 

are ADOPTED in full;

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 74) is DENIED; and

3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings 

including the setting of a trial date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00257-JLT Document 84 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 2