Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05773/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05773-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES B. MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

ANDREWS, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:01-cv-05773-REC-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 58)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 58)

Plaintiff, James B. Mitchell (“plaintiff”), is a former

federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a

civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On August 26, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:01-cv-05773-DLB Document 59 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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 August 26,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed February

8, 2005, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PARTY as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s First Amendment Claim against defendants Ford and

Rivas for interference with mail is GRANTED;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s Retaliation Claim regarding his placement in the

Special Housing Unit in October of 1999 is GRANTED;

c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s retaliation claim regarding the August of 1999

housing move is DENIED; and,

d. This case proceed to trial on plaintiff’s

retaliation claim regarding the August of 1999 housing move only.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05773-DLB Document 59 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2