(PC) Burton v. Adams et al, No. 2:2005cv02131 - Document 62 (E.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 2/4/08 ORDERING that the FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS filed 12/27/07 59 are ADOPTED in full. Defendants' MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 54 is GRANTED and The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and against Plaintiff and close this file. CASE CLOSED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Burton v. Adams et al Doc. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRY JOE BURTON, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 No. CIV S-05-2131-FCD-CMK-P ORDER ADAMS, et al., Defendants. 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On December 27, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Timely objections to the 23 findings and recommendations have been filed. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// Dockets.Justia.com 1 In his objections, plaintiff states the magistrate judge did not address his claim of 2 “censorship.” Specifically, he alleges that defendants used white out to cover the court’s return 3 address on mail sent by the court and that this resulted in the mail being “disallowed” under 4 prison rules requiring a return address on all mail. The magistrate judge did, however, address 5 this issue to the extent he concluded that incoming legal mail from the courts is not protected 6 under the First Amendment. Moreover, as defendants argued in their motion for summary 7 judgment, plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he did not know which defendant allegedly 8 tampered with his legal mail. Thus, plaintiff has no evidence to establish any genuine dispute as 9 to this claim. Finally, the undisputed facts reveal that plaintiff ultimately received the mail in 10 question. 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 12 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 13 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 14 by proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 27, 2007, are adopted 18 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 54) is granted; and 19 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants 17 in full; 20 and against plaintiff and to close this file. 21 DATED: February 4, 2008. 22 23 24 25 26 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
