Walters

(PC) Thomas v. Walters

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 7, 20242:18-cv-01711California5,425 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFFORD BRENT THOMAS, No. 2:18-CV-1711-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 F. HOLMES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF 19 No. 75. Plaintiff has filed an opposition, ECF No. 77. Defendants have filed a reply, ECF No. 20 78. 21 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment or summary 22 adjudication when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, 23 together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that 24 the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The 25 standard for summary judgment and summary adjudication is the same. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 56(a), 56(c); see also Mora v. ChemTronics, 16 F. Supp.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.