Hutchins, Jr. v. Lockyer, et al.
Filing
55
ORDER ADOPTING 53 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/4/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CLIFTON HUTCHINS, JR.,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. 1:15-cv-01537-DAD-JDP (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
BILL LOCKYER, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN
PART DEFENDANT JOHAL’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 41, 53)
Plaintiff Clifton Hutchins. Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
18
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United
19
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On March 6, 2018, defendant A. Johal moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule
21
of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to
22
filing suit as required. (Doc. No. 41.) On April 15, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued
23
findings and recommendations, recommending that defendant Johal’s motion for summary
24
judgment be granted in part and denied in part after finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his
25
administrative remedies concerning his First Amendment retaliation claim but had exhausted
26
those administrative remedies with respect to his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim.
27
(Doc. No. 53.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained
28
notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 8.)
1
1
On April 19, 2019, defendant Johal filed a notice of non-opposition, stating that she did not object
2
to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 54.) No objections have
3
been filed by plaintiff and the time for doing so has now passed.
4
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
5
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
6
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
7
Accordingly:
8
1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 15, 2019 (Doc. No. 53) are
9
10
adopted in full;
2. Defendant Johal’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 41) is granted in part and
11
denied in part without prejudice;
12
a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendant as to plaintiff’s First
13
Amendment retaliation claim due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his
14
administrative remedies prior to filing suit;
b. Summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment indifference
15
16
17
18
19
20
to serious medical needs claim; and
3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 4, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
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?