Brent Lee Harding v. Correctional Health Services, et al.

E.D. California

Brent Lee Harding v. Correctional Health Services, et al.

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket2:21-cv-00922

StatusUnknown

This text of Brent Lee Harding v. Correctional Health Services, et al. (Brent Lee Harding v. Correctional Health Services, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brent Lee Harding v. Correctional Health Services, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRENT LEE HARDING, No. 2:21-cv-00922 KJM SCR P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee during the events underlying his federal claims, filed this civil 19 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is proceeding pro se. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302. 22 On August 13, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 23 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 24 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 60. Neither party 25 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 27 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 28 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 1 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 2 . . . .”). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are 3 thorough and insightful, and supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 60) are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendant Holt’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 50) is granted; and 6 3. Defendant Mencias’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51) is granted. 7 4. The clerk of the court is directed to grant judgment in defendants’ favor and close the 8 case. 9 This order resolves ECF Nos. 50, 51, 60. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: September 9, 2025. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRENT LEE HARDING, No. 2:21-cv-00922 KJM SCR P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee during the events underlying his federal claims, filed this civil 19 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is proceeding pro se. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302. 22 On August 13, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 23 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 24 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 60. Neither party 25 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 27 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 28 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 1 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 2 . . . .”). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are 3 thorough and insightful, and supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 60) are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendant Holt’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 50) is granted; and 6 3. Defendant Mencias’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51) is granted. 7 4. The clerk of the court is directed to grant judgment in defendants’ favor and close the 8 case. 9 This order resolves ECF Nos. 50, 51, 60. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: September 9, 2025. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brent Lee Harding v. Correctional Health Services, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brent-lee-harding-v-correctional-health-services-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack