Garces v. Pickett et al

Filing 225

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/20/2024 ADOPTING 220 The Findings and Recommendations in full; Plaintiff's 197 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendants' 204 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
J. PICKETT, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-00319-DAD-AC P
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 197, 204, 220)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Luis Manuel Garces is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

19

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

20

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

21

On October 26, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

22

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 197) be denied and that

23

the motion for summary judgment brought on behalf of remaining defendants Pickett and

24

Chapman (Doc. No. 247) be granted. (Doc. No. 220.) Specifically, based upon the evidence

25

submitted by the parties, the magistrate judge concluded that it was in fact undisputed that neither

26

defendant acting associate warden Pickett or defendant associate warden Chapman were involved

27

in the decision to house plaintiff with the inmate who attacked plaintiff. (Id. at 9–11.)

28
1

1

Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that

2

any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 11.) On

3

December 18, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations.

4

(Doc. No. 223.) On December 28, 2023, defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s objections.

5

(Doc. No. 224.)
Plaintiff’s objections provides no basis upon which to question the thorough analysis of

6
7

the evidence on summary judgment and the applicable law as set forth in the pending findings

8

and recommendations. Instead, plaintiff’s objections primarily focus on the court’s prior orders

9

denying his requests for the appointment of counsel, his claims that he did not voluntarily

10

participate in his own deposition, his complaint that he was not provided with adequate discovery

11

by defendants and his conclusory contention that a reasonable inference could be drawn that

12

defendants Pickett and Chapman acted intentionally to provoke the inmate attack upon him.

13

(Doc. No. 223 at 1–11.) These objection do not meaningfully challenge the findings and

14

recommendations or provide any basis upon which they should be rejected.

15

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

16

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

17

including plaintiff’s objection, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are

18

supported by the record and proper analysis.

19

Accordingly:

20

1.

21

The findings and recommendations issued on October 26, 2023 (Doc. No. 220) are
adopted in full;

22

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 197) is DENIED;

23

3.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 204) is GRANTED; and

24

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated:

February 20, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2