Opinion
1:18-cv-01023-DAD-EPG (PC)
08-16-2021
CION PERALTA, Plaintiff, v. J. SWETALLA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIF'S DUE PROCESS CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT CANO AND DENYING THE MOTION AS TO PLAINTIFF'S RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT MACHADO AND HIS DUE PROCESS CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT POWERS
(DOC. NO. 55)
Plaintiff Cion Peralta is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which also includes a state law claim. 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 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 38) be granted as to plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Cano and denied as to plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Machado and plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Powers. (Doc. No. 55.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (Id. at 24.) 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 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 55) are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 38) is granted as to plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Cano and denied as to plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Machado and plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Powers; and
3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.