Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lewis v. Ryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 1, 2008

BRIAN DEVERICK LEWIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
S. RYAN, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

ORDER: ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE STORMES' REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In the present action, the Hon. Nita L. Stormes has issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") advising this Court to: (1) GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment; (2) DENY Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment; and (3) DENY Plaintiff's request for judicial notice. Both parties have failed to file timely objections to Magistrate Judge Stormes' R&R.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." "When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Having reviewed the R&R in the absence of any timely objection, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Stormes did not commit clear error in her thorough, well-reasoned analysis. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R IN FULL.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 1: With respect to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Levin, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART;

2. With respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Levin, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART;

3. With respect to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Vorise, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART;

4. With respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment claims against Defendants Woodford and Vorise, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART;

5. With respect to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendant Woodford, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART;

6. With respect to Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART;

7. With respect to Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and the Court FINDS that all Defendants are entitled to immunity.

8. Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 98] is DENIED; and

9. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice [Doc. No. 100] is DENIED.

20080501

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.