Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05229/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05229-1/pdf.json

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

---

SEP 2 8 2006 

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UY 

DEPUTYCLERu 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JUAN RADILLO, 1:04-cv-05229-AWI-DLB-P 

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 3 8) 

irs . ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR 

?UJIOKA, et . al., SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(Doc. 30 & 31) 

Defendant. 

1 

Juan Radillo ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro 

se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action 

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

1 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On September 12, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings 

and Recommendations that recommended Plaintiff's motion for 

summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part and 

3efendants cross motion for summary judgment be granted. The 

Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and 

contained notice that any objections to the Findings and 

Case 1:04-cv-05229-AWI -DLB Document 40 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 2
Recommendations were to be filed within fifteen (15) days. No 

objections have been filed. 

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

5 636(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. The Court 

does note that the Magistrate Judge recommended granting both 

Plaintiff's and Defendants' motion for summary judgment on 

Plaintiff's First Amendment claim. On the First Amendment claim, 

the undisputed facts show a constitutional violation. However, 

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. As such the court 

finds that only Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on 

this claim because, despite the occurrence of a constitutional 

violation, Defendants have successfully defeated this claim based 

on the defense of qualified immunity. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 12, 

2006, are ADOPTED; and, 

2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; 

3. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and 

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for 

Defendants. 

Case 1:04-cv-05229-AWI -DLB Document 40 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2