Ilsung v. Mobert

Filing 75

ORDER Adopting 73 Findings and Recommendation to Grant 49 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in Part, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/25/15. Case to Remain Open. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

VICTORY ILSUNG,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.

Case No. 1:10-cv-2070-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART

ROBERT MOBERT,
(ECF Nos. 49, 73)
Defendant.
CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who initiated this civil rights action pro se and in forma
pauperis on November 8, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On March 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
to grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment in part. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff did
not object to the findings and recommendation and the time for doing so has expired.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by
proper analysis.

1
2
3
4
5

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on March 2,
2015 (ECF No. 73), in full;
2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 49), filed on May 1,
2014, is GRANTED in PART;

6

3. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's Medical

7

Indifference and Retaliation claims with the exception of Plaintiff's claims

8

that he was subject to retaliation when (i) he was denied ice as authorized

9

by his medical chrono and (ii) subject to cell searches and had property

10

confiscated in retaliation for filing a staff complaint against Defendant;

11

4. Plaintiff’s claims of medical indifference are HEREBY DISMISSED;

12

5. The case shall remain open for further proceedings on Plaintiff’s remaining

13
14
15

First Amendment Retaliation claims; and
6. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: March 25, 2015

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2