IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 5, 2012
LEE EDWARD HARRIS, PLAINTIFF,
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff's claim that defendant Sisson violated his right to due process at a prison disciplinary hearing by: (1) not allowing him to call witnesses in his defense; and (2) finding him guilty despite evidence showing otherwise. Dckt. Nos. 30, 32. On September 14, 2012, defendant Sisson filed a motion for summary judgment, which establishes that the due process elements of Wolff McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974),were met at plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, and that some evidence supported the finding of guilt. Dckt. No. 56.*fn1 On October 11, 2012, after plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's motion, the court directed plaintiff to file either an opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion. Dckt. No. 58. On October 25, 2012, plaintiff filed a statement of no opposition. Dckt. No. 59.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted (Dckt. No. 56);
2. Judgment be entered in defendant's favor; and
3. The Clerk be directed to close this case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).