(PC) Torres v. Gipson et al, No. 1:2016cv01525 - Document 129 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 121 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 99 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/21/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN MATIAS TORRES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. CONNIE GIPSON, et al., Defendants. No. 1:16-cv-1525-NONE-JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docs. Nos. 99, 121) Plaintiff Juan Matias Torres, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 3, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s 21 motion (Doc. No. 105) to declare defendants’ declarations shams and findings and 22 recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 99) for summary judgment. 23 (Doc. No. 121.) Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate’s order and findings and 24 recommendations, to which defendants filed a response. (Docs. No. 127, 128.) 25 Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to declare certain 26 declarations a sham, implying that he seeks de novo review. (Doc. No. 127 at 3–5.) Defendants 27 argue the objection is not properly before the court because the magistrate judge issued an 28 order, not findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 127 at 4.) In any event, the magistrate 1 judge’s ruling on this issue would be upheld by the undersigned even applying a de novo 2 standard of review. Plaintiff’s objections do not show any flaws in the magistrate judge’s 3 reasoning. Thus, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s order as its own. 4 Next, plaintiff argues that he showed a nexus between his protected conduct and the 5 allegedly retaliatory activity of the defendants. The magistrate judge concluded that the 4.5 6 months between plaintiff filing his inmate grievance in August 2013 and the allegedly 7 retaliatory act in December 2013 was too lengthy of a gap in time to withstand summary 8 judgment. Plaintiff contends that the proper timeframe is the one month between the grant of 9 his inmate grievance in November 2013 and the purported retaliation against him in December 10 2013. However, plaintiff provides no argument or evidence establishing why November 2013 is 11 the correct starting point for this analysis. For instance, he points to no evidence showing that 12 defendants were unaware of his filing of an inmate grievance until November 2013. Plaintiff 13 argues in his objections that he has provided additional causal links in this regard. But he does 14 not point to any such evidence before the court on summary judgment, and the court did not 15 found any such evidence. Because defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be granted 16 on this basis alone, the court need not address plaintiff’s remaining objections to the pending 17 findings and recommendations. 18 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted 19 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that 20 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 21 analysis. 22 Accordingly, 23 1. 24 The findings and recommendations issued on February 3, 2021, (Doc. No. 121), are adopted in full; 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 99), is GRANTED; and 2 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge for purposes of 3 closure and to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 6 October 21, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.