Clinton v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 544

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/14/2014 ORDERING 526 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are ADOPTED in full; 536 Motion for Reconsideration is construed as objections to the Findings and Recommendations; Defendant's motion for summ ary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Defendants' motion is GRANTED as to defendants DeSantis, Riley, and Marshall; Defendants' motion is DENIED as to defendant Cooper; Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant s DeSantis, Riley, and Marshall; This case shall continue as to defendant Cooper only as to plaintiff's claim that defendant Cooper failed to honor his medical chronos for an extra blanket and tennis shoes; plaintiff's 527 motions for sanctions and miscellaneous relief based on defendants' alleged dishonesty are DENIED; and plaintiff's 542 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS CLINTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:05-cv-1600-LKK-CMK

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

16

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action

17
18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

19

pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On October 18, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

20
21

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file

22

objections within a specified time. Timely objections1 to the findings and recommendations have

23

been filed (Docs. 535, 536, 538).

24

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

25

304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

26

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

27

1

28

In addition to objections the findings and recommendations, plaintiff also filed motions for reconsideration of the
findings and recommendations and an appeal to the district court. The court has construed these documents as
additional objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

proper analysis.

2

On March 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate

3

judge’s March 21, 2014 order denying plaintiff’s December 9, 2013 motion to stay this action.

4

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 303(f), a Magistrate Judge’s order shall be

5

upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court

6

finds that it does not appear that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary

7

to law.2 The March 21, 2014, order is, therefore, affirmed.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 18, 2013, are adopted in full;

10

2. Plaintiff’s October 24, 2013 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 536) is

11

construed as objections to the October 18, 2013 findings and

12

recommendations;

13

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 526) is granted in part

14

and denied in part;

15

4. Defendants’ motion is granted as to defendants DeSantis, Riley, and Marshall;

16

5. Defendants’ motion is denied as to defendant Cooper;

17

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants

18

DeSantis, Riley, and Marshall;

19

7. This case shall continue as to defendant Cooper only as to plaintiff’s claim that

20

defendant Cooper failed to honor his medical chronos for an extra blanket and

21

tennis shoes;

22

8. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions and miscellaneous relief based on defendants’

23

alleged dishonesty are denied; and

24

9. Plaintiff’s March 28, 2014 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 542) is

25

denied.

26
27
28

DATED: August 14, 2014.
2

Denial of plaintiff’s motion to stay “did not dispose of any claims or defenses and did not effectively deny him any
ultimate relief sought.” S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013). It was therefore
within the magistrate judge’s authority to dispose of the motion by order.

2