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