Penton v. Hubard et al

Filing 278

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/29/22 ADOPTING in full 256 Findings and Recommendations. The Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 222 , 224 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: A. Defendant Johnson� 39;s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 224 ) on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies is GRANTED as to the 8/5/2008 screened out appeal, but DENIED as to appeal log no. 07-02453; B. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgm ent as to Defendant Johnson (ECF No. 222 ) is DENIED; and C. Defendant Johnson's Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Adjudication (ECF No. 224 ) on the merits is DENIED, and his Motion for Qualified Immunity is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at trial. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY PENTON,

12
13
14

No. 2:11-cv-00518-TLN-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

L. JOHNSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed this civil rights action seeking

18

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

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On February 10, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

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

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 256.) Both

23

parties filed objections to the findings and recommendations; both parties filed replies. (ECF

24

Nos. 267, 267, 275, 276.)

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26

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

27

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

28

analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 10, 2022 (ECF No. 256), are

3
4
5
6

adopted in full;
2. The Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 222, 224) are GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part, as follows:
A. Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 224) on the

7

issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies is GRANTED as to the August 5, 2008 screened

8

out appeal, but DENIED as to appeal log no. 07-02453;

9
10
11

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Johnson
(ECF No. 222) is DENIED; and
C. Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary

12

Adjudication (ECF No. 224) on the merits is DENIED, and his Motion for Qualified Immunity is

13

DENIED without prejudice to renewal at trial.

14

DATED: March 29, 2022

15
16
17
18

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2