Burton v. Adams et al

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 2/4/08 ORDERING that the FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS filed 12/27/07 59 are ADOPTED in full. Defendants' MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 54 is GRANTED and The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and against Plaintiff and close this file. CASE CLOSED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

(PC) Burton v. Adams et al

Doc. 62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. ADAMS, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On December 27, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. /// /// /// TERRY JOE BURTON, Plaintiff, ORDER No. CIV S-05-2131-FCD-CMK-P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 in full;

In his objections, plaintiff states the magistrate judge did not address his claim of "censorship." Specifically, he alleges that defendants used white out to cover the court's return address on mail sent by the court and that this resulted in the mail being "disallowed" under prison rules requiring a return address on all mail. The magistrate judge did, however, address this issue to the extent he concluded that incoming legal mail from the courts is not protected under the First Amendment. Moreover, as defendants argued in their motion for summary judgment, plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he did not know which defendant allegedly tampered with his legal mail. Thus, plaintiff has no evidence to establish any genuine dispute as to this claim. Finally, the undisputed facts reveal that plaintiff ultimately received the mail in question. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 27, 2007, are adopted

2. 3.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 54) is granted; and The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants

and against plaintiff and to close this file. DATED: February 4, 2008.

_______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE