Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Hopkins v. Bustos

United States District Court, S.D. California

June 20, 2017

MICHAEL HOPKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
R. BUSTOS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER (1) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND (3) GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 81)

          Hon. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge.

         Presently before the Court are: (1) Defendants Jeffrey Beard[1] and Daniel Paramo's Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ, ” ECF No. 63); (2) Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) advising that the Court should grant Defendants' MSJ, (ECF No. 81); and Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R, (“R&R Objs., ” ECF No. 85). Defendants did not file a reply in opposition to Plaintiff's Objections. After considering the parties' arguments and the law, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections, (2) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, and (3) GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

         BACKGROUND

         Judge Lewis's R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and procedural histories underlying the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. (See R&R 1- 9[2].) This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties regarding a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made, ” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980). In the absence of a timely objection, however, “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's note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 510 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

         ANALYSIS

         I. Summary of the R&R Conclusion

         On May 4, 2015 Plaintiff filed a Complaint against various defendants for alleged violations of his civil rights. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff accuses the moving Defendants of violating his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by denying him admittance into the Developmentally Disabled Program (“DDP”) which would have allegedly enabled him to file grievances against correctional staff while he was incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”). (Compl. 5-7.) On September 14, 2016 Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that (1) neither Beard nor Paramo violated Plaintiff's due process rights, and (2) Plaintiff's claim is moot. (See generally MSJ.)

         Judge Lewis concluded that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's due process rights and thus recommends that the Court grant Defendants' MSJ. While Plaintiff argues that Defendants denied him access into the DDP, Judge Lewis notes that the evidence shows the opposite-that Plaintiff initially failed to test into the program, was still able to file grievances, and was eventually placed into the DDP. (R&R 12-13.) Thus, Judge Lewis found that there was no liberty interest at stake wherein process was constitutionally due. (Id. at 13.)

         II. Summary of Plaintiff's Objections

         Plaintiff's objections appear to be buried at page 196 of his 213-page filing.[3] (R&R Objs. 196.) Liberally construing Plaintiff's filing, it appears that he objects to Judge Lewis's apparent failure to consider certain evidence in issuing his R&R. (See, e.g., id. at 197 (listing the bases for Plaintiff's Objections).)

         III. Court's Analysis

         The Court will review, de novo, each part of Judge Lewis's R&R ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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