1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BRUCE ANTHONY Case No.: 1:25-cv-01026-KES-SKO McPHERSON, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION 13 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS v. PREMATURE 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF (Docs. 12, 13) 15 CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 Plaintiff Michael Bruce Anthony McPherson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 20 this civil rights action. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 21

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On September 29, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 12. On 23 October 21, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 24 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied as premature. Doc. 13. 25 The findings and recommendations provided that any objections were to be filed within 14 days 26 of service.

. On November 7, 2025, plaintiff filed objections. Doc. 14. 27 In accordance with

(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Plaintiffs’ objections do not meaningfully challenge the reasoning of the findings and 1 || recommendations. Plaintiff argues he is entitled to immediate relief because a court took judicial 2 | notice of his complaint. However, “[j]ust because the document itself is susceptible to judicial 3 | notice does not mean that every assertion of fact within that document is judicially noticeable for 4 | its truth.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2018). The 5 | magistrate judge correctly reasoned that summary judgment was premature as the Court has not 6 | yet screened plaintiff's complaint and the defendants have not appeared in this action. Having 7 | carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiffs objections, the Court finds the findings and 8 || recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 Accordingly: 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 21, 2025, Doc. 13, are adopted 11 in full; 12 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed September 29, 2025, Doc. 12, is denied 13 as premature; 14 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 15 16 17 | TIS SO ORDERED. _ 18 Dated: _ November 28, 2025 4h 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28