Opinion
CASE NO. 08-CV-2318 W (RBB)
03-11-2013
STANFORD P. BRYANT, Plaintiff, v. T. ARMSTRONG, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
[DOC. 117], (2) GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.
91], AND (3) DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.
92]
On December 12, 2008, Plaintiff Stanford Paul Bryant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. 1]. On March 3, 2009, he filed a First Amended Complaint [Doc. 3]. The ten named Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amedned Complaint [Doc. Nos. 15, 18]. This Court issued an order adopting Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks' Report and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [Doc. Nos. 27, 37].
On June 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 39]. All ten Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 40], which was granted in part and denied in part [Doc. Nos. 46-47]. The six remaining Defendants- Armstrong, Catlett, Janda, Lizarraga, Ochoa, and Trujillo- filed their Answer [Doc. No. 49].
On December 23, 2011, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 91]. On the same day, Plaintiff filed his own Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 92]. Plaintiff and Defendants both oppose [Doc. No. 96, 101]. On August 3, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (Report 3[Doc. 117].) The Report also recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement be denied. (Id.) In addition, the Report ordered the parties to file written objections by August 29, 2012, and any reply to the objections by September 12, 2012. (Id.) On August 29, 2012, Defendants filed an Objection to the Report's recommendations [Doc. 118].
Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court "must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). Having conducted a de novo review of the Report, the Court concludes that Judge Brooks issued an accurate Report and well-reasoned recommendation that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report [Doc. No. 117] in its entirety, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 91], DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 92], and ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. With respect to the equal protection cause of action in count one against Defendant Armstrong on a class-of-one theory, Defendant Armstrong's Motion for Summary Judgement is GRANTED.
2. With respect to the retaliation cause of action in count three, Defendant Armstrong's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
3. With respect to the retaliation cause of action in count three, Defendant Ochoa's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
4. With respect to the retaliation cause of action in count three, Defendant Janda's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
5. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in all other respects is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
United States District Judge