(PC) Garrett v. Baker ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT, No. 2:16-cv-1336 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF MACOMBER, 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 as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 26, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 129. Plaintiff 23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF Nos. 131, 132. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The 27 court writes separately to make two observations that do not alter its decision to adopt the 28 findings and recommendations. ] First, the language of the findings and recommendations might be at points misinterpreted 2 || as suggesting it was plaintiffs burden to prove his claims, for example by showing there was “no 3 || penological need” motivating the denial of his witness request. See F&Rs at 12. To eliminate 4 || any uncertainty, the court confirms summary judgment is granted because plaintiff has not carried 5 || his burden in opposition to defendants’ motion under Rule 56 and the Supreme Court’s decisions 6 || interpreting that rule. See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 7 Second, the court notes it has relied on City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 8 | 473 US. 432, 442-43 (1985), in adopting the conclusion expressed in the second to last sentence 9 || of section IV.A.11 of the findings and recommendations, in addition to Mayner v. Callahan, 10 | 873 F.2d 1300, 1302 (9th Cir. 1989). 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 26, 2020, are adopted in full; 13 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 111), is granted; and 14 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for the defendants and close the case. 15 || DATED: September 30, 2021. 16 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28