Griffin v. Zurbano et al

Filing 133

ORDER (1) Adopting 129 Report and Recommendation, and (2) Granting 87 and 88 Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/04/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES E. GRIFFIN, II,

Case No.: 16-CV-2715 JLS (WVG)
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION, AND
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

vs.

13
14
15
16

RAQUEL E. ZURBANO; DORRIE P.
STEADMAN; MICHAEL J. ROGGELIN;
K. SPENCE; and MICHAEL SANTOS,

17

(ECF Nos. 87, 88, 129)

Defendants.

18
19

Presently before the Court are the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by

20

Defendants R. Zurbano, D. Steadman, M. Santos, and M. Roggelin (the “Zurbano Mot.,”

21

ECF No. 87) and Defendant K. Spence (the “Spence Mot.,” ECF No. 88) (together, the

22

“Motions”). Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Zurbano Motion

23

(“Opp’n,” ECF No. 120); and Defendants Zurbano, Steadman, Santos, and Roggelin’s

24

Reply (“Reply,” ECF No. 126). Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo has issued a Report

25

and Recommendation advising the Court to grant the Motions (“R&R,” ECF No. 129).

26

Plaintiff did not object to the R&R.

27

///

28

///
1
16-CV-2715 JLS (WVG)

1

BACKGROUND

2

Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R contains a complete and accurate recitation of the

3

relevant portions of the factual and procedural histories underlying Defendants’ Motions.

4

R&R at 2–5. This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

5
6

LEGAL STANDARD
I.

Review of the Report and Recommendation

7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

8

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

9

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or

10

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may

11

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

12

magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,

13

673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence

14

of timely objection, however, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error

15

on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

16

advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th

17

Cir. 1974)).

18

II.

Motion for Summary Judgment

19

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a party may move for summary

20

judgment as to a claim or defense or part of a claim or defense. Summary judgment is

21

appropriate where the Court is satisfied that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material

22

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);

23

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Material facts are those that may affect

24

the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A

25

genuine dispute of material fact exists only if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

26

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. When the Court considers the

27

evidence presented by the parties, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and

28

all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255.
2
16-CV-2715 JLS (WVG)

1

The initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact falls

2

on the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The moving party may meet this burden

3

by identifying the “portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

4

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’” that show an absence of dispute

5

regarding a material fact. Id. When a plaintiff seeks summary judgment as to an element

6

for which it bears the burden of proof, “it must come forward with evidence which would

7

entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.” C.A.R. Transp.

8

Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Houghton

9

v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992)).

10

Once the moving party satisfies this initial burden, the nonmoving party must

11

identify specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S.

12

at 324. This requires “more than simply show[ing] that there is some metaphysical doubt

13

as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

14

586 (1986). Rather, to survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must “by her own

15

affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’

16

designate ‘specific facts’” that would allow a reasonable fact finder to return a verdict for

17

the non-moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The non-

18

moving party cannot oppose a properly supported summary judgment motion by “rest[ing]

19

on mere allegations or denials of his pleadings.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.

20

ANALYSIS

21

Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of his First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

22

Amendment rights, as well as state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional

23

distress and negligence. See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 10, 93–94. Through their Motions,

24

Defendants seek summary adjudication of each of Plaintiff’s claims. See generally ECF

25

Nos. 87, 88. Magistrate Judge Gallo recommends that Defendants’ Motions be granted

26

and that summary judgment be entered on behalf of all Defendants. See R&R at 19.

27

Because Plaintiff failed timely to object to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R, the Court

28

reviews the R&R for clear error. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is well
3
16-CV-2715 JLS (WVG)

1

reasoned and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety

2

Judge Gallo’s R&R (ECF No. 129) and GRANTS Defendants’ Motions (ECF Nos. 87,

3

88).

4

CONCLUSION

5

In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Gallo’s

6

R&R (ECF No. 129) and GRANTS Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF

7

Nos. 87, 88). Because this Order concludes litigation in this case, the Clerk of Court

8

SHALL close the file.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated: March 4, 2019

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
16-CV-2715 JLS (WVG)