Opinion
3:09-CV-00799-AC
08-31-2011
KENNETH GREGORY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. STEVE SHELTON, Oregon Department of Corrections Health Service Director; MARY RAINES, CCCI Health Service Manager; DOUG BUTLER, ODOC Health Service Pharmacist, Defendants.
KENNETH GREGORY WILLIAMS Oregon State Penitentiary Plaintiff, Pro Se JOHN R. KROGER Attorney General E. ARRON SPRAGUE ANDREW D. HALLMAN Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for Defendants
KENNETH GREGORY WILLIAMS
Oregon State Penitentiary
Plaintiff, Pro Se
ORDER
JOHN R. KROGER
Attorney General
E. ARRON SPRAGUE
ANDREW D. HALLMAN
Assistant Attorneys General
Attorneys for Defendants
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#98) on July 21, 2011, in which he recommends the Court grant Defendants' Motion (#84) for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
On August 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion in Opposition to Summary Judgment, which the Magistrate Judge properly construed as Objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F, 3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to present any evidence to support his claim that Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race. Plaintiff asserts in his Objections that two inmates "both agreed to provide affidavits and to testify" on Plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff, however, did not actually submit any affidavits or other evidence with his Objections or at any other point in this litigation to support his claim.
Accordingly, the Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#98) and, therefore, GRANTS Defendants' Motion (#84) for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge