Estrada v. Tassey et al
Filing
194
ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations and Granting Defenants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/14/15. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
DAVID ESTRADA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
GIPSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:13cv00919 LJO DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Document 187)
16
Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
18
Pauperis in this this civil action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013.
19
This action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation
20
21
of the First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
22
On February 13, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The matter
23
was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
24
25
26
27
28
Rule 302.
///
///
///
1
1
On September 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
2
Defendants’ motion be granted. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties
3
4
and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff filed
objections on October 1, 2015, and Defendants filed a reply on October 8, 2015.1
5
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
6
7
8
9
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s
objections and Defendants’ reply, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are
supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Plaintiff’s objections are simply a repeat of the arguments made in his opposition and
10
11
addressed by the Magistrate Judge in the Findings and Recommendations. Although Plaintiff
12
contends that the Magistrate Judge erred, recitation of his prior arguments does not establish
13
grounds upon which to question the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
14
15
16
17
18
To the extent that Plaintiff faults the Magistrate Judge for indicating that he would not
search the record for issues of material fact, this does not demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis was flawed. First, as the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, the Court does not have a
duty to search the record for triable issues of material fact, even in actions involving pro se
litigants. In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 386 (9th Cir. 2010). Second,
19
the Magistrate Judge concluded that even if Plaintiff provided evidence of his safety concerns, it
20
21
did not factor into the Court’s decision.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
22
1.
23
full;
24
25
The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 2, 2015, are ADOPTED in
///
26
27
28
1
All documents related to the motion for summary judgment, including the Findings and Recommendations,
Plaintiff’s objections and Defendants’ reply, are filed under seal. However, as this order does not discuss any
sensitive information, it need not be sealed.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
2.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Document 165) is GRANTED; and
3.
Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants on all claims.
This terminates this action in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
October 14, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?