(PC) Gonzales v. Gonzales ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL GONZALES, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-0459 JLT SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING THE 13 v. ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY ) DEFENDANT J. GONZALEZ 14 GONZALEZ, et al., ) ) (Docs. 55, 62) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 Michael Gonzales is a state prisoner and seeks to hold several correctional officers liable for 18 providing food tainted with involuntary antipsychotic medication without a court order, in violation of 19 his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. (See generally Doc. 1; see also Doc. 8 at 7- 20 8; Doc. 9.) Specifically, Plaintiff believes Officer J. Gonzalez obtained Thorazine, Haldol, or Cogentin 21 in white power form and placed it in his food in May 2018. (See Doc. 62 at 6, 12.) Officer J. Gonzalez 22 seeks summary judgment on the claim against him. (Doc. 55.) 23 On November 22, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations 24 addressing the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 62.) The magistrate judge noted Plaintiff “failed 25 to provide any evidence in support of his opposition.” (Id. at 14.) The magistrate judge also found 26 Plaintiff’s “statement that Defendant Gonzalez placed mediations in his food is conclusory and does not 27 provide specific information relating to the medications involved, the color or form of the medications, 28 and the dates or manner in which they were alleged to have been placed in his food.” (Id.) The 1 || magistrate judge determined it was “undisputed that none of the three medications identified by 2 || Plaintiff existed in white powder format.” (/d. at 13.) The magistrate judge concluded the undispute 3 || evidence also showed “Defendant Gonzalez never received any medication, in white powder or 4 || otherwise, to administer to Plaintiff.” (Ud. at 13-14.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommende 5 || the motion for summary judgment by Officer J. Gonzalez be granted. (/d. at 14.) 6 The parties were granted thirty days from the date of service to file any objections to the 7 || recommendation of the magistrate judge. (Doc. 62 at 15.) Thus, Plaintiff was to file any objections t 8 || the Findings and Recommendations no later than December 28, 2021. In addition, the parties were 9 || “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 10 || appeal.” CUd., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 11 || F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections have been filed. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec 13 || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 14 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are 15 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated November 22, 2021 (Doc. 62) are 17 ADOPTED IN FULL. 18 2. The motion for summary judgment (Doc. 55) is GRANTED; and 19 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Gonzalez 20 and to close this action, because this order terminates the matter in its entirety. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: _ February 25, 2022 ( Lin fi L. wan 24 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28