Opinion
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01771-AWI-DLB PC
08-03-2012
KEVIN E. FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 62)
Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 2, 2011, Defendants Foley, Magvas, Hernandez, Marsh, Molina, and Tucker filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 51. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 11, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 62. No party filed a timely Objection to the Findings and Recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Pursuant to Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012), Defendants are required to provide a notice pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988), at the time a motion for summary judgment is filed to prevent prejudice against a pro se prisoner litigant in opposing such motion. A Rand notice was not served concurrently with the filing of the motion. However, Plaintiff concedes summary judgment for his claims against Defendants Magvas and Foley, and Defendants' motion is denied as to the remaining Defendants. Thus, a Rand notice would not affect adjudication of the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 11, 2012, is adopted in full; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed December 2, 2011, is GRANTED in part and denied in part;
3. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants Magvas and Foley and against Plaintiff for the Eighth Amendment claims;
4. Summary judgment is denied as to Defendants Hernandez, Molina, Marsh, and Tucker;
5. Defendants Magvas and Foley are dismissed from this action;
6. This action proceed on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim regarding unsanitary conditions in his cell against Defendants Hernandez, Molina, Marsh, and Tucker and on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim regarding inadequate temperature in his cell against Defendants Hernandez, Molina, and Marsh; and
7. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
______________________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE