Hunt v. Fields

Filing 59

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/27/12 ADOPTING IN FULL 58 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 35 Motion for Summary Judgment ; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, as outlined in the findings a nd recommendations, leaving at issue plaintiff's retaliation claim in connection with the 8/28/08 work re-assignment; and this case is REFERRED back to the magistrate judge for setting a further schedule for trial on the remaining issue. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL A. HUNT,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

No.2: 09-cv-3525 KJM GGH P

Defendant.

12

ORDER

vs.
D. FIELDS,

/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On September 10, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and

21

recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that

22

any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.

23

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

25

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

26

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
1

1

1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

2

be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.1

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 10, 2012 are adopted in

5

full;

6

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 35) is denied;

7

3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment (Doc. No. 45) is

8

granted in part, and denied in part, as outlined in the findings and recommendations, leaving at

9

issue plaintiff’s retaliation claim in connection with the August 28, 2008 work re-assignment;

10

and

11

4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for setting a further schedule

12

for trial on the remaining issue.

13

DATED: September 27, 2012.

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

The court notes the inadvertent omission of the word “not” on page 12, line 8.
2