Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-3/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

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT E. STEARNS, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:00-06331-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 301)

ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc.266)

Plaintiff, Scott E. Stearns (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 July 29, 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 thirty (30)

days. On August 3, 2005 and August 12, 2005, plaintiff filed

objections and exhibits to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 311 Filed 08/30/05 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. Plaintiff’s

objections do not show that there was no evidence to support

prison officials’ determination that Plaintiff is an associate of

the prison gang Nazi Low Riders. Only if there was no evidence

to support prison officials’ determination regarding Plaintiff’s

gang affiliation would Plaintiff be entitled to summary judgment

on his due process claim. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional

Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55 (1985). Contrary to

Plaintiff’s assertions in his objections, the court does not deny

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment solely on the ground that

he did not comply with all of the court’s procedure rules in

filing his motion. As set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations granting Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment on the due process claim, the undisputed facts

reveal some evidence to support the gang affiliation finding. 

For this reason, Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 29, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, filed

October 14, 2004, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 311 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 2