Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931-14/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

ROBERT G. BAKER

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01931-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 59, 60)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 7 & 10.) The action 

proceeds against Defendant Kitt on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical 

care claim. (ECF No. 11.) On May 13, 2016, the undersigned denied Defendant’s motion 

for summary judgment. (ECF No. 56.) On May 27, 2016, Defendant twice filed identical 

objections to the Court’s order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and Local 

Rules 303 and 304.1

 

1

The objections identify the Defendant in this case as Dr. Mui. (ECF No. 59 at 2.) Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment identified the Defendant as Dr. Pineda. (ECF No. 48-3 at 12). The actual Defendant in 

this case is Dr. Kitt. This repeated misidentification has created confusion for the Court and for Plaintiff. 

(See ECF No. 49 at 3.) The twice erroneously filed (see below) objections did likewise. Such careless 

errors not only confuse; they waste time of the Court and the parties. All make errors of this nature on 

occasion, but counsel for the defense has exceeded the quota by far. It is time counsel give federal court 

filings the attention they deserve. Repeated such error will be sanctioned.

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 61 Filed 06/02/16 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

Rule 72 and Local Rules 303 and 304 apply in matters referred to a Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). It is apparent that Defendant wishes the 

objections to be reviewed de novo by a District Judge. However, the instant matter is 

before the undersigned for all purposes pursuant to the consent of the parties and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 8, 33.) Review of this matter by a District Judge therefore is 

not available to Defendant.

To the extent Defendant wishes to seek further review of the order denying his 

motion for summary judgment, he may file a motion for reconsideration of same, keeping 

in mind that the applicable standard of review differs from that presented in Defendant’s 

objections. 

Accordingly, the objections are HEREBY DENIED without prejudice to Defendant 

raising his arguments in a properly filed motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 61 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 2