Fields v. Junious et al

Filing 64

ORDER ADOPTING 62 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 51 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/3/2012. Summary Judgment is granted in favor of Defendants Magvas and Foley and Against Plaintiff for the Eighth Amendment Claims and Summary Judgment is denied as to Defendants Hernandez, Molina, Marsh and Tucker. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

9
10
11

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01771-AWI-DLB PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 62)

v.
MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al.,

12

Defendants.
/

13
14

Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

15

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 2, 2011, Defendants Foley, Magvas,

16

Hernandez, Marsh, Molina, and Tucker filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 51. The

17

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

18

Local Rule 302.

19

On June 11, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was

20

served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and

21

Recommendations was to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 62. No party filed a timely

22

Objection to the Findings and Recommendations.

23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de

24

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

25

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.1

26
27
28

1

Pursuant to Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th Cir. Jul. 6,
2012), Defendants are required to provide a notice pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.
1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988), at the time a motion for

1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 11, 2012, is adopted in full; and

3

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed December 2, 2011, is GRANTED

4
5

in part and denied in part;
3.

6
7

Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants Magvas and Foley and against
Plaintiff for the Eighth Amendment claims;

4.

8

Summary judgment is denied as to Defendants Hernandez, Molina, Marsh, and
Tucker;

9

5.

Defendants Magvas and Foley are dismissed from this action;

10

6.

This action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim regarding unsanitary

11

conditions in his cell against Defendants Hernandez, Molina, Marsh, and Tucker and

12

on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim regarding inadequate temperature in his cell

13

against Defendants Hernandez, Molina, and Marsh; and

14
15
16
17

7.

The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
0m8i78

August 3, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

summary judgment is filed to prevent prejudice against a pro se prisoner litigant in opposing such
motion. A Rand notice was not served concurrently with the filing of the motion. However, Plaintiff
concedes summary judgment for his claims against Defendants Magvas and Foley, and Defendants’
motion is denied as to the remaining Defendants. Thus, a Rand notice would not affect adjudication of
the motion.

2