Buckley v. High Desert State Prison et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/6/2015 ORDERING that the 36 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL. Defendant's 33 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This matter is REFERRED back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JULES BUCKLEY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-01310-KJM-DAD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

On November 26, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

21

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

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On December 2, 2014,

23

plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned undelivered. On December 3,

24

2014, the findings and recommendations were re-served on plaintiff at a corrected address.

25

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

26

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

27

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

28

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed
1

1

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

2

the proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 26, 2014 are adopted in full.

5

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33) is granted in part and denied

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

in part, as follows:
a. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that he was
exposed to unconstitutional prison working conditions is denied;
b. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that defendant
was deliberately indifferent to his need for medical care is granted; and
c. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is
denied.
3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent
with this order.
DATED: February 6, 2015.

16
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2