Opinion
CASE NO. 2:18-cv-01380-BJR-BAT
03-03-2020
JEROME CEASAR ALVERTO, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE HENDERLING, et al. Defendants.
ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court are two motions, (1) Plaintiff Jerome Ceasar Alverto's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Supplement the Record, Dkt. No. 43, and (2) Defendants Michelle Henderling and Shift Lt. Richard Samp's (collectively "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 37.
As to the first, Plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in August of 2019, Dkt. No. 26, United States Magistrate Brian A. Judge Tsuchida provided a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending denying the motion, Dkt. No. 31, and Plaintiff objected to that recommendation, Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiff's current pending motion seeks to amend a citation in that objection. Dkt. No. 43. The Court, however, has already adopted Judge Tsuchida's R&R and denied Plaintiff's motion. Dkt. No. 46. As such, Plaintiff's current pending Motion to Supplement the Record is moot and will be denied accordingly.
Second, Defendants bring their own Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 37. Judge Tsuchida has provided another R&R recommending granting Defendants' motion. Dkt. No. 45. Plaintiff both opposes Defendants' motion, Dkt. No. 40, and objects to Judge Tsuchida's R&R, Dkt. No. 47.
The R&R lays out the factual and procedural background of this case and of the Motion, which need not be repeated here. Dkt. No. 45 at 1-3, 5-7. The Court has reviewed Defendants' motion, Plaintiff's response, Judge Tsuchida's R&R, and Plaintiff's objections to that R&R, and will adopt the R&R. It is axiomatic that nonmoving parties seeking to avoid summary judgment must identify specific facts from which a reasonable finder of fact could find in the nonmovant's favor. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Here, it is clear that whereas Defendants have provided substantial evidence in the form of testimonies supporting a lack of a genuine dispute of material facts, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to carry his burden in avoiding summary judgment. As such, granting summary judgment is appropriate.
The Court, therefore, orders as follows:
(1) The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record, Dkt. No. 43, as moot;
(2) The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 45, and GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 37;
(3) The amended complaint, Dkt. No. 12, is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the case is closed; and
(4) The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
DATED this 3rd day of March, 2020.
/s/_________
BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE