ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 45 & 84)
Plaintiff Gregory Lynn Norwood ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 24, 2009.
On June 21, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment issue regarding the denial of outdoor exercise. (ECF No. 45.) On July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No.51.) On August 1, 2012, the Court issued a findings and recommendations recommending to grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 70.) On October 19, 2012, the Court issued an order permitting Plaintiff opportunity to withdraw his opposition and file an amended opposition in light of Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012). (ECF No. 75.)
On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 76.) On November 19, 2012, Defendants filed objections to Plaintiff's amended opposition, which the Court construed as Defendants' reply. (ECF No. 77.) On February 11, 2013, the Magistrate Judge vacated its findings and recommendations in light of Plaintiff's amended opposition and Defendants' construed reply. (ECF No. 83.) On March 18, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations recommending to grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 84.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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. The Court agrees that in light of the similarity between this action and Noble v. Adams, 646 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court must grant Defendants qualified immunity in this action, and grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that
1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on March 18, 2013, in full;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;
3. The issue as to whether Defendants set up conditions or failed to handle the situation which led to the lockdown periods in violation of the Eighth Amendment will proceed; and
4. This matter shall be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for scheduling purposes.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...