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