Bridges v. Hubbard et al

Filing 123

ORDER ADOPTING 121 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/13/13 GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 91 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment claim is dismi ssed for failure to state a claim. Defendants R S Johnson, R Marquez, Marsh, G. Marshall, R. K. Wong, Crandell and R Inicevich are dismissed from this action. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on the retaliation claim against defendant Davey. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WILLIE BRIDGES,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2:09-cv-0940 TLN DAD P

SUZAN L. HUBBARD, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

16
17

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

18

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 17, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

19
20

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

21

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed

22

objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

23
24

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

25

ORDERED that:

26

/////
1

1

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 17, 2013, are adopted in full;

2

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 91) is granted in part

3

and denied in part as follows:

4

a. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the statute of

5

limitations is denied;

6

b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s conspiracy

7

claim is granted;

8

c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s retaliation

9

claim against defendant Davey is denied;

10

d. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s due process

11

claims is denied as unnecessary; and

12

e. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the affirmative

13

defense of qualified immunity is denied.

14
15

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment claim is
dismissed for failure to state a claim;

16
17

4. Defendants Crandall, Ivicevich, Johnson, Marquez, Marsh, Marshall, and
Wong are dismissed from this action; and
5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on

18
19

plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Davey.

20

DATED: September 13, 2013

21
22
23

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

/brid0940.801

24
25
26
2