Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00550/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00550-4/pdf.json

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

- 1 - 04cv550 WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04cv550 WQH (WMc)

ORDER

vs.

BRANHAM and GUTHRIE,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (#71)

filed on June 13, 2008 by the United States Magistrate William McCurine, Jr.

BACKGROUND

On June 13, 2008, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that this Court enter summary judgment in favor of

Defendants on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and deny Plaintiff’s motion for

sanctions. The parties were ordered to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation

on or before July 9, 2008. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

RULING OF THE COURT

The duties of the district court in connection with the Report and Recommendation of

a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “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

Case 3:04-cv-00550-WQH-WMC Document 74 Filed 08/05/08 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 - 04cv550 WQH

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The

Court has reviewed de novo all aspects of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on June 13, 2008 and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 

The Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendants presented strong circumstantial

evidence that the events which transpired in the prison law library on July 2, 2002 were

motivated by a legitimate correctional purpose and that the Plaintiff cannot overcome the well

established prison regulations limiting library time to two hours and restricting the manner in

which legal documents can be mailed. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff

has no evidence to support the fifth element necessary to establish a First Amendment

retaliation claim in the prison context. All of the claims presented by Plaintiff in the operative

First Amended Complaint has been resolved in favor of Defendants.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts all portions of the Report and

Recommendation (Doc. # 71); Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 59) is granted

as to the Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and negligence claim. Plaintiff’s claim

for equal protection was dismissed in a prior order (Doc. # 47). It is further ordered that

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. The Clerk shall enter judgment against Plaintiff and

in favor of Defendant.

DATED: August 5, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00550-WQH-WMC Document 74 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 2