(PC) Rood v. Department of Corrections ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLTON JAMES ROOD, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01517 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 N. KEOVILAY-SEE and SCOTT ) COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE FRAUENHEIM, ) 15 ) (Docs. 90, 92) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 Colton James Rood seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his rights under the 18 Eighth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Keovilay-See and Frauenheim1 moved 19 for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 90.) 20 The magistrate judge found “there is no genuine dispute of material facts as to whether 21 Defendant Keovilay-See failed to protect Plaintiff from a serious threat to his safety in violation of the 22 Eighth Amendment and whether Defendant Frauenheim failed to train his subordinates in violation of 23 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right.” (Doc. 92 at 1; see also id. at 6-16.) Thus, the magistrate judge 24 determined there was “no triable issue,” and summary judgment should be granted. (Id. at 18.) The 25 magistrate judge recommended the motion be granted, judgment be entered in favor of Defendants, and 26 the action be closed. (Id.) 27 28 1 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 2 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 92 at 18-19.) The Court advised him that the “failure to f 3 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. at 19, citing 4 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 5 || time to do so has passed. 6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 7 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 8 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 16, 2024 (Doc. 92) are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 90) is GRANTED. 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: _ September 16, 2024 ( LAW ph L. wan 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28