Lopez v. Peterson, et al

Filing 485

ORDER adopting in full 476 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 6/16/17. Plaintiff's 458 motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendants' 466 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's 465 motion for substitution of deceased defendant is DENIED as moot. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW RICK LOPEZ,

12
13
14

No. 2:98-cv-2111-MCE-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

D. PETERSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action

18

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On February 9, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations. Defendants have filed a response to those

24

objections.

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

27

file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

28

proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 9, 2017, (ECF No. 476) are

3

ADOPTED in full.

4

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 458) is DENIED.

5

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 466) is GRANTED in part. The

6

following claims are DISMISSED:

7

(a) Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Castro and D. Peterson;

8

(b) Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Holmes, C.J. Peterson, and

9

D. Peterson;

10
11

(c) Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Babich, Baughman, and
Diggs;

12

(d) First Amendment claims against defendant Baughman; and

13

(e) First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendant Reyes.

14

4. Defendants’ motion is DENIED in all other respects.

15

5. Plaintiff’s motion for substitution of deceased defendant (ECF No. 465) is DENIED as

16
17
18

moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 16, 2017

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2