Opinion
1:19-cv-00352-DAD-EPG (PC)
09-09-2021
EUGENE C. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. C. CHOTHIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(DOC. NOS. 70, 83)
Plaintiff Eugene C. Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 12, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70) be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 83.) Specifically, the findings and recommendations recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants Shaw, Crutchfield, Walker, Allen, Kempe, Chothia, Artis, Jukes, and Gilmore on plaintiff's Eight Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious risk of harm, and that summary judgment be denied as to plaintiff First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Jukes, Londono, and Crutchfield. (Id. at 24.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. (Id.) To date, none of the parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations and the time in which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 12, 2021 (Doc. No. 83) are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70) is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants Shaw, Crutchfield, Walker, Allen, Kempe, Chothia, Artis, Jukes, and Gilmore on plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious risk of harm; and
b. Summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff s First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Jukes, Londono, and Crutchfield.
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.