Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02468/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02468-0/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 - [04cv2468]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN DEVERICK LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04cv2468 JLS (NLS)

ORDER: ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STORMES’ REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

vs.

S. RYAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

In the present action, the Hon. Nita L. Stormes has issued a report and recommendation

(“R&R”) advising this Court to: (1) GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment; (2) DENY Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment; and (3) DENY

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice. Both parties have failed to file timely objections to Magistrate

Judge Stormes’ R&R. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

“When no timely objection is filed, 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

Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 

Case 3:04-cv-02468-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 05/01/08 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

- 2 - [04cv2468]

Having reviewed the R&R in the absence of any timely objection, the Court finds that

Magistrate Judge Stormes did not commit clear error in her thorough, well-reasoned analysis.

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R IN FULL. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that:

1: With respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against

Defendant Levin, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART;

2. With respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Levin,

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART;

3. With respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against

Defendant Vorise, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN

PART;

4. With respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims against Defendants Woodford and

Vorise, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART;

5. With respect to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against

Defendant Woodford, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN

PART;

6. With respect to Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is

DENIED IN PART;

7. With respect to Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages, Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and the Court FINDS that all

Defendants are entitled to immunity.

Case 3:04-cv-02468-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 05/01/08 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

- 3 - [04cv2468]

8. Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 98] is DENIED; and

9. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice [Doc. No. 100] is DENIED.

DATED: May 1, 2008

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02468-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 05/01/08 Page 3 of 3