The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On March 31, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Both parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 31, 2009, are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 105) is resolved as follows:
A. Granted as to defendants Mandeville and Rosario on the Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force based on the use of too-tight shackles and taping;
B. Denied as to defendants Mandeville and Rosario on the Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement while plaintiff was on contraband watch;
C. Denied as to defendants Mandeville and Rosario on the Fourteenth Amendment claim for violation of due process as to plaintiff's placement on contraband watch and his right to express his views to the appropriate person while on contraband watch;
D. Granted as to defendants Rasmussen, Davis, Case and Rodriguez on the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim as to plaintiff's placement on contraband watch and his right to express his views to the appropriate person while on contraband watch;
E. Granted as to defendants Mandeville, Rosario, Rasmussen, Davis, Case and Rodriguez on the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim with respect to the allegedly false disciplinary report; and
F. Granted as to defendants Rosario and Rodriguez on any claims on behalf of Philissa Richard.
3. Plaintiff is to file his pretrial statement within thirty days of this order. Defendants Mandeville and Rosario are to file their pretrial statements within ...