Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02264/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02264-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN DEVERICK LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv2264-WQH-BGS

ORDER

v.

M. WAGNER, Correctional Officer,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

filed by United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal. (ECF No. 30).

I. Background

On September 23, 2014, Plaintiff Brian Deverick Lewis, a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 against Defendant M. Wagner. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges that

Defendant violated Plaintiff’s right to be free from retaliatory punishment for engaging

in conduct protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated

his First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff

alleges that “Defendant disciplined [Plaintiff] in a retaliatory manner by searching his

cell and confiscating his personal property for exercising his First Amendment right of

submitting a CDCR 602 against Defendant.” (ECF No. 30 at 3). On January 5, 2015,

Defendant filed an answer. (ECF No. 5).

On October 13, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF

- 1 - 14cv2264-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 37 Filed 09/14/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

No. 15). On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition and cross motion for

summary judgment. (ECF No. 28). On March 16, 2016, Defendant filed a reply in

support of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 29).

On June 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation,

recommending that the Court grant the motion for summary judgment filed by

Defendant. (ECF No. 30). With regard to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, the

Report and Recommendation states, “Plaintiff has not submitted evidence of opposition

to his protected speech,” and “Defendant has presented evidence that . . . Defendant

Wagner had a legitimate correctional purpose for searching Plaintiff’s cell.” Id. at 15. 

The Report and Recommendation states “[I]t does not appear that Plaintiff’s exercise

of his First Amendment rights were chilled by the threat of the search or the search

itself.” Id. With regard to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, the Report and

Recommendation states, “Defendant’s actions do not demonstrate knowledge and

disregard of excessive medical risk” and “[n]o triable issue of material fact exists as to

the objective or subjective components of Plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 18. With regard to

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, the Report and Recommendation states,

“There is no evidence that Plaintiff pursued the state law remedy available to him under

California Government Code §§ 810 et seq. before asserting his constitutional claim. 

Therefore, as a matter of law, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s

Fourteenth Amendment Claim.” Id. at 20.

The Court granted Plaintiff two extensions of time to file objections to the Report

and Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 33, 36). The final Order issued by the Court stated,

“Plaintiff shall file any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before

September 1, 2016. Defendants shall file any reply on or before September 12, 2016.” 

(ECF No. 36). The docket reflects that no objections have been filed.

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

- 2 - 14cv2264-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 37 Filed 09/14/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “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.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a

Report andRecommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9thCir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act]

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the

parties themselves accept as correct.”).

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the

submissions of the parties. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly

recommended that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. The Report

and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary

judgment (ECF No. 28) is denied. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 30) 

is ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.

15) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28)

is DENIED. 

DATED: September 13, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv2264-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 37 Filed 09/14/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3