Johnson v. Sisto et al

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING 46 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 11/18/09 ORDERING that plf's 42 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; dfts' 32 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to: dft s Hunter (Calvo), Ward, Brown and Sisto insofar as thecomplaint alleges denial of a religious diet; dfts Hunter (Calvo), Ward, Brown, Sisto and Cruz to the extent plf alleges he does not receive a vegan diet; dfts' 32 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to: dft Cruz, insofar as the complaint alleges he denied plf a religious meal on 10/11/06; dfts' request that the claim for punitive damages be stricken. (Benson, A.)

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 v. D.K. SISTO, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. On September 2, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Both parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations; both have provided additional material with their objections, which the court has considered. Espinoza-Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d 1021, 1026 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2005). /// 1 GEORGE I. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, ORDER No. 2:07-cv-01826-MCE-KJM-P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the new materials, 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 September 2, 2009 are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 42) is denied; 3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 32) is granted as to: A. Defendants Hunter (Calvo), Ward, Brown and Sisto insofar as the complaint alleges denial of a religious diet; B. Defendants Hunter (Calvo), Warde, Brown, Sisto and Cruz to the extent plaintiff alleges he does not receive a vegan diet; and 4. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 32) is denied as to: A. Defendant Cruz, insofar as the complaint alleges he denied plaintiff a religious meal on October 11, 2006; and B. Defendants' request that the claim for punitive damages be stricken. Dated: November 18, 2009 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2