(PC) Edwards v. McDonald, No. 2:2010cv01264 - Document 103 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 100 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/25/2013. Defendant's 82 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED as follows: a) any retaliation claim in 30 Thir d Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; b) Summary Judgment is GRANTED for defendant Perez on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim and in favor of remaining defen dants with respect on plaintiff's claim of interference with access to Courts; and c) Summary Judgment is DENIED for defendant Perez on merits of plaintiff's First Amendment claim, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim and on defense of qualified immunity as to those claims. This matter is REFERRED BACK to Magistrate Judge Moulds for further proceedings. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
(PC) Edwards v. McDonald Doc. 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN DARNELL EDWARDS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:10-cv-1264 MCE JFM P v. ORDER HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 22, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff and defendants 23 have each filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2013, are ADOPTED in full; 3 2. Defendants’ October 31, 2012 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part 4 5 6 7 and DENIED in part as follows: a. Any retaliation claim in the third amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; b. Summary judgment is granted for defendant Perez on plaintiff’s Fourth 8 Amendment claim and in favor of the remaining defendants with respect on plaintiff’s claim of 9 interference with access to the courts; and 10 c. Summary judgment is denied for defendant Perez on the merits of plaintiff’s 11 First Amendment claim, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim and on the defense of 12 qualified immunity as to those claims. 13 14 3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Dated: September 25, 2013 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2