Cejas v. Myers, et al.
Filing
182
ORDER ADOPTING 174 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Granting 132 Motion for Summary Judgment Filed by Defendants Myers, Trimble, McGee and Fisher signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 06/16/2016. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANDREW CEJAS,
12
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FILED BY DEFENDANTS MYERS,
TRIMBLE, McGEE AND FISHER
Defendants.
13
14
No. 1:12-cv-00271 AWI DLB PC
(Document 174)
v.
MYERS, et al.,
15
16
Plaintiff Andrew A. Cejas (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and
17
18
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is
19
proceeding on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint for violation of his First Amendment right to
20
practice his religion against Defendants.
On January 11, 2016, Defendants Myers, Trimble, McGee and Fisher filed a motion for
21
22
summary judgment.1 The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28
23
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
24
25
Defendants’ motion be granted. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff
26
27
1
28
Defendants Foston, Van Leer and Pimentel are represented by different counsel and have filed their own motion for
summary judgment. The motion was addressed by separate Findings and Recommendations.
1
1
and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff filed
2
objections on May 26, 2016. Defendants filed their reply on June 6, 2016.
3
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
4
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s
5
objections and Defendants’ reply, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are
6
supported by the record and proper analysis.
7
Plaintiff’s objections are based mainly on his disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s
8
evidentiary rulings and interpretation of the evidence. As in his opposition to the motion for
9
summary judgment, Plaintiff’s arguments remain based on speculation and/or inadmissible
10
hearsay. In fact, the Magistrate Judge addressed many of the arguments that Plaintiff now repeats
11
in his objections. Plaintiff also repeats his arguments related to an equal protection issue, though
12
this claim was dismissed from this action.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1.
The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 20, 2016, are adopted in full;
15
2.
The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Myers, Trimble, McGee
16
17
18
19
20
21
and Fisher (Document 132) is GRANTED;
3.
Judgment is ENTERED IN FAVOR of Defendants Myers, McGee,
Fisher and Trimble.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 16, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?