Perrotte v. Johnson et al

Filing 161

ORDER ADOPTING 157 Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING Defendants' 99 Motion for Summary Judgment, Allowing Action to Proceed on Only the Retaliation Claim Against Defendant Johnson as Defined Herein, and Dismissing All Other Claims Against Defendant Johnson and Leflore, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/24/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY P. PERROTTE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
STACEY JOHNSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-00026-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, ALLOWING ACTION TO
PROCEED ON ONLY ON THE RETALIATION
CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT JOHNSON AS
DEFINED HEREIN, AND DISMISSING ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT
JOHNSON AND LEFLORE
[ECF Nos. 99, 157[

Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Perrotte is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

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

21

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

22

Recommendations recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, and this

23

action proceed only on the retaliation claim against Defendant Johnson for placement of false CDCR

24

Form 128-B in his central file and placement in the administrative security unit and all other claims

25

and Defendant LeFlore be dismissed, without prejudice. The Findings and Recommendations were

26

served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. No

27

objections were filed and the time to do so has expired.

28

///
1

1

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

2

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

3

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 10, 2018, are adopted in full;

6

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted;

7

3.

This action shall proceed only on the retaliation claim against Defendant Johnson for

8

placement of a false CDCR Form 128-B in Plaintiff’s central file and placement in the administrative

9

security housing unit; and

10
11

4.

All other claims against Defendant Johnson and Defendant LeFlore are dismissed from

the action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

September 24, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2