Harpool v. Beyer et al

Filing 76

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/10/2012 ADOPTING 72 Findings and Recommendations in full; GRANTING 55 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Beyer with the exception of the Eighth Amendment claim which is DENIED; DENYING 55 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim as to Defendants Carter and Fowler. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GARY L. HARPOOL,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2: 10-cv-1253 MCE GGH P

M. BEYER, et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.

ORDER
/

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

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.

19

On July 6, 2012, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations (ECF

20

No. 72) herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

21

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

22

addition, in light of Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012), the magistrate judge, by order

23

filed on July 12, 2012, provided Plaintiff once again with the requirements to oppose summary

24

judgment pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998), and gave Plaintiff an

25

opportunity to provide further evidentiary submissions. Plaintiff’s response was considered and

26

addressed by order, filed on August 7, 2012, correctly determining that no modification of the
1

1

pending findings and recommendations was warranted. Neither party has filed objections to the

2

findings and recommendations.

3

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

4

304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

5

entire file, including the objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be

6

supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on July 6, 2012, are ADOPTED IN

8

FULL;

9

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on October 26, 2011 (ECF

10

No. 55), is GRANTED as to Defendant Beyer with the exception of the Eighth Amendment

11

claim which is DENIED, and the motion is DENIED on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation

12

claim as to Defendants Carter and Fowler. There has been no adjudication of plaintiff’s ADA

13

claim.

14

Dated: September 10, 2012

15
16
17

________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2