Howard v. Deazevedo

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and REFERRING Matter Back to Magistrate Judge to Set for Trial 56 , 75 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/13/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

D. L. DeAZEVEDO, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, AND REFERRING MATTER
BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO SET
FOR TRIAL

Defendants.
(Docs. 56 and 75)

15
_____________________________________/
16
17

Plaintiff Timothy Howard, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 20, 2011. This action for damages
19 is proceeding on Plaintiff=s amended complaint against Defendants DeAzevedo, Paz, and Stephens
20 for retaliating against Plaintiff by searching his cell and confiscating or destroying his personal
21 property, in violation of the First Amendment; against Defendant DeAzevedo for retaliating
22 against Plaintiff by issuing him a false Rules Violation Report; and against Defendant James for
23 depriving Plaintiff of his right to a fair disciplinary hearing by an impartial decision maker, in
24 violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
25

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

26 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 11, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and
27 Recommendations recommending Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. The
28 parties did not file objections.

1

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

2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings
3 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on July 11, 2014, is adopted in full;

6

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on October 18, 2013, is

7
8

DENIED; and
3.

This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to set for trial.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: August 13, 2014

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2