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

" ; ~ 

i ~ l I~~ 

' I 

. LJ 

11'7N@V29 AMII: 19 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

--;~JCT C01JPT 

1-.,., ~~--, .,_)~~~f:1RrliA 

10 BRIAN DEVERICK LEWIS, CASE NO. 14cv2264-WQH-BGS 

11 

12 

13 

14 

v. 

M. WAGNER, 

15 HAYES,Judge: 

Plaintiff, 

Defendant. 

16 The matters before the Court are the Motion for New Trial and Motion for 

17 Reconsideration (ECF No. 4 2 ); Motion Requesting a Bad Faith Finding ofDefendant' s 

18 Motion for Summary Judgment Supporting Declaration (ECF No. 44); Objections to 

19 the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 46); and the Ex Parte Application 

20 Requesting to Know the Status of Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 49) 

21 filed by Plaintiff. 

22 I. Background 

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

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

25 1983 against Defendant M. Wagner. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

26 violated his First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

27 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Plaintiffs right to be free from retaliatory 

28 punishment for engaging in conduct protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiff 

- 1 - l 4cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 11
1 alleges that Defendant disciplined Plaintiff in a retaliatory manner by searching his cell 

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

3 submitting aCDCR602 against Defendant. Id. at4-5. On January 5, 2015,Defendant 

4 filed an Answer. (ECF No. 5). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Defendant. (ECF No. 30). With regard to Plaintiffs First Amendment claim, the 

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

13 to his protected speech," and "Defendant has presented evidence that ... Defendant 

14 Wagner had a legitimate correctional purpose for searching Plaintiffs cell." Id. at 15. 

15 The Report and Recommendation states, "[I]t does not appear that Plaintiffs exercise 

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

17 itself." Id. With regard to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim, the Report and 

18 Recommendation states, "Defendant's actions do not demonstrate knowledge and 

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

20 the objective or subjective components of Plaintiffs claim." Id. at 18. With regard to 

21 Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment claim, the Report and Recommendation states, 

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

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

24 Therefore, as a matter oflaw, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs 

25 Fourteenth Amendment Claim." Id. at 20. Further, the Report and Recommendation 

26 states, "Plaintiff has not provided evidence that the deprivation he experiences was of 

27 such constitutional magnitude that a material issue of fact exists." Id. 

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

- 2 - 14cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 11
1 Report and Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 33, 36). The docket reflects that no timely 

2 objections were filed. 

3 On September 14, 2016, this Court issued an order adopting the Report and 

4 Recommendation in its entirety. On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of 

5 Late Filing of Plaintiffs Objections to the Report and Recommendation stating that due 

6 to the "closure and dysfunction" of the RJD Facility A Library, Plaintiff was unable to 

7 timely file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 40). 

8 On March 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed Motion for New Trial and Motion for 

9 Reconsideration, Motion Requesting a Bad Faith Finding of Defendant's Motion for 

10 Summary Judgment Supporting Declaration, and Objections to the Report and 

11 Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 42, 44, 46). On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Ex 

12 Parte Application Requesting to Know the Status of Plaintiffs Motion for 

13 Reconsideration. (ECF No. 49). The record reflects that Defendant has not filed a 

14 response to any of Plaintiffs recent filings. 

15 II. Motion for New Trial or in the alternative Motion for Reconsideration 

16 Plaintiff moves the Court for an order granting him a new trial pursuant to Rule 

17 59(a) or in the alternative, requests that the Court vacate the judgment entered in this 

18 case pursuant to Rule 60(b) and consider Plaintiffs objections to the Report and 

19 Recommendation. (ECF No. 42). There has been no trial in this case. Accordingly, 

20 the Court construes Plaintiffs motion as a Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Rule 

21 60(b). 

22 Plaintiff contends that he could not timely file his objections to the Report and 

23 Recommendation due to circumstances beyond his control and that his objections were 

24 not considered in the Order adopting the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff asserts 

25 that he attempted to make a copy of his objections and file on August 26, 2016 to meet 

26 the September 1, 2016 deadline, but was unsuccessful because the copy machine in the 

27 library was out of order. Plaintiff asserts that the copy machine was out of order until 

28 September 16, 2016, and due to a large volume of backlog of copying services for other 

- 3 - 14cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 11
1 inmates, Plaintiff could not copy his objections until September 19, 2016. 

2 A. Applicable Law 

3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides in relevant part: 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

On motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding forthe followin~reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not ave been 

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b ); (3) fraud .. . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing part)'; (4) the 

judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or 

disCharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or 

vacated; or applyjng_it prosJ?ectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason lliat Justifies reiief. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. (60)(b); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529-32 (2005) 

(Rule 60(b) applies to habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). The burden of 

proof is on the party bringing the Rule 60(b) motion. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk 

Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992); see also Sch. Dist. No. JJv. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 

1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). 

To justify relief under Rule 60(b )(1 ), a party must show "excusable neglect." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(l). "To determine when neglect is excusable, we conduct the 

equitable analysis ... by examining ... (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing 

party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the 

reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." Lemoge v. 

United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). 

"To justify relief under subsection (6) [of Rule 60], a party must show 

'extraordinary circumstances' suggesting that the party is faultless in the delay." 

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. BrunswickAssocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). 

Courts "use Rule 60(b )( 6) sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 

24 

injustice." Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States 

25 

v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993)) (quotations 

26 

omitted). "To receive relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must demonstrate 

27 

'extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute his 

28 

case."' Id. (quoting Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F .3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

-4- l 4cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 11
t 

1 "Relief under Rule 60(b )( 6) will not be granted unless the moving party is able to show 

2 both injury and circumstances beyond its control prevented timely action to protect its 

3 interest." Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir. 2009). 

4 

5 

B. Ruling of Court 

Upon a review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated 

6 injury because he lacked sufficient opportunity to timely file objections to the Report 

7 and Recommendation. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated an inability to 

8 timely file objections to the Report and Recommendation due to circumstances beyond 

9 his control. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated "extraordinary 

1 O circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute his case" sufficient 

11 to warrant relief from judgment. See Lal, 610 F.3d at 524. 

12 The Motion to Vacate the Court's Order on September 14, 2016 (ECF No. 37) 

13 is granted. (ECF No. 42). 

14 III. Objections to the Report and Recommendation 

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

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

17 Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). When a party objects to a Report and 

18 Recommendation, "[a]judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination 

19 of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made." 

20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no 

21 objections are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation 

22 de novo. See Wangv. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States 

23 

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). A district court 

24 

may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 

25 made by the magistrate." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). 

A. First Amendment Retaliation Claim 26 

27 

28 

The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff failed state a claim for retaliation 

- 5 - 14cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 11
1 because Plaintiff did not demonstrate that Defendant's actions did not reasonably 

2 advance a legitimate correctional goal and did not demonstrate causation between the 

3 alleged retaliation and the exercise of Plaintiff's First Amendment Right. The Report 

4 and Recommendation states "Plaintiff alleges that on February 22, 2014, ... he told 

5 Defendant Wagner that he would write a complaint against him for his disrespect to 

6 which Defendant allegedly responded 'and then you're going to be my next cell search, 

7 what cell are you in?"' (ECF No. 30 at 2). The Magistrate Judge found that the 

8 encounter on February 22nd was not the cause of the alleged retaliatory search because 

9 Defendant submitted evidence that the cell search was "part of Defendant's required 

10 duty." Id. at 13. The Magistrate Judge found that "Defendant would have had to 

11 engage in a cell search even in the absence of the Plaintiff's CDCR 602 complaint" and 

12 concluded that "Plaintiff has failed to submit evidence that the actions taken by 

13 Defendant lacked a legitimate correctional goal." Id. 

14 Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Plaintiff failed to 

15 prove the elements of a retaliation claim. Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge 

16 relied on material facts that are false and misleading. (ECF No. 46). 

17 A viable claim of First Amendment retaliation contains five basic elements: ( 1) 

18 an assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate, (2) because 

19 of, (3) that inmate's protected conduct, and that action ( 4) chilled the inmate's exercise 

20 of his First Amendment Rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a 

21 legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 

22 2005). The plaintiff must submit evidence that links the alleged retaliation with the 

23 exercise of a First Amendment right. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 

24 1995). The plaintiff must show the exercise of the First Amendment right was the 

25 substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant's conduct. Soranno 's Gasco, Inc. 

26 v. Morgan, 87 4 F .2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). Raising a genuine issue of material 

27 fact as to retaliatory motive requires that the plaintiff produce, "in addition to evidence 

28 

- 6 - l 4cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 11
• 

1 that the defendant knew of the protected speech, at least (1) evidence of proximity in 

2 time between the protected speech and the allegedly retaliatory decision, (2) evidence 

3 that the defendant expressed opposition to the speech or (3) evidence that the 

4 defendant's proffered reason for the adverse action was false or pretextual." Pinard 

5 v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 467 F.3d 755, 771 n.21 (9th Cir. 2006). 

6 

7 

1. Number of cell searches 

Plaintiff objects to the factual finding in the Report and Recommendation that 

8 Plaintiffs cell was searched twice in March 2014. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's 

9 March 29, 2014 search was the sixth time Plaintiffs cell was searched that month. 

IO Plaintiff does not contend that Defendant conducted any of the five searches prior to 

11 the March 29th search. Plaintiff contends the March 29th search was not part of 

12 Defendant's required job duty and was not an "infrequent and unscheduled" search 

13 pursuant to CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 15 § 3287(a)(l) (2017). Plaintiff objects to the 

14 factual finding in the Report and Recommendation that most cells in the housing unit 

15 were searched between one and four times in February and March 2014. See ECF No. 

16 30 at 13. Plaintiff contends the Cell Search Log and Housing Unit Log Book indicate 

17 that no cell was searched more than three times per month, that most cells were 

18 searched one time, and that five cells were not searched at all in March 2014. Plaintiff 

19 asserts that these facts show that Defendant did not have a legitimate correctional goal 

20 in searching his cell on March 29, 2014. 

21 The Magistrate Judge noted that "cell search frequency is an average - not a 

22 limit." (ECF No. 30at13). The Magistrate Judge found that any dispute regarding the 

23 number of times Plaintiffs cell was searched in March 2014 was not material. The 

24 Magistrate Judge correctly concluded "Defendant would have had to engage in a cell 

25 search even in the absence of Plaintiffs CDCR 602 complaint" and that "a part of 

26 Defendant's required duty [is] to conduct mandatory routine cell searches." Id. at 13. 

27 Evidence in the record supports the Magistrate Judge's finding that the March 29th 

28 

-7- l 4cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 11
1 search by Defendant reasonably advanced a legitimate correctional goal. 

2 

3 

2. Proximity between retaliatory threat and search 

Plaintiff contends the search by Defendant on March 29, 2014 was the first 

4 search conducted by Defendant since the alleged retaliatory threat on February 22, 

5 2014. Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that "Plaintiff has not 

6 submitted sufficient evidence of proximity in time between the incident or submission 

7 of the CDCR 602 in February and the alleged retaliatory cell search, which occurred 

8 a little more than a month later on March 29, 2014." (ECF No. 30 at 14). 

9 Causation is met if the Plaintiffs speech is the motivating factor behind the 

lO retaliatory conduct. Pratt, 65 F. 3d at 807. In this case, the record reflects that 

11 Defendant was "required" to conduct mandatory routine cell searches. (ECF No. 30 

12 at 13). "Defendant would have had to engage in a cell search even in the absence of 

13 Plaintiffs CDCR 602 complaint." Id. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that 

14 the evidence does not demonstrate that Plaintiffs speech was the motivating factor of 

15 Defendant's cell search. 

16 As to the fourth element, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that "it does 

17 not appear that Plaintiffs exercise of his First Amendment rights were chilled by the 

18 threat of a search or the search itself." (ECF No. 30 at 15). 

19 B. Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims 

20 Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the confiscation by 

21 Defendant of Plaintiffs fan and pillow "do[es] not demonstrate knowledge and 

22 disregard of excessive medical risk." (ECF No. 30 at 18). Plaintiff contends merely 

23 possessing items in cells that do not appear on an approved list or for which inmates 

24 cannot prove permissibility did not violate prison rules and did not warrant 

25 confiscation. Plaintiff contends Defendant had no legitimate basis to confiscate 

26 Plaintiffs items and Defendant violated Plaintiffs Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment 

27 rights. 

28 

- 8 - 14cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 11
' 

1 

2 

1. Applicable Law 

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and "embodies 

3 broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity and decency." 

4 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976) (citing Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571 

5 (8th Cir. 1968)). In the context ofincarceration, although "[t]he Constitution 'does not 

6 mandate comfortable prisons," the Supreme Court has stated that malicious cell 

7 searches and "calculated harassment unrelated to prison needs" may implicate the 

8 Eighth Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Rhodes 

9 v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981)); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 528-30 

1 O (1984 ). However, after incarceration, "only the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

11 pain' . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth 

12 Amendment." Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 670 (1977) (quoting Estelle, 429 

13 U.S. at 103). 

14 A viable Eighth Amendment claim that a prison official has deprived an inmate 

15 of humane conditions must meet both an objective requirement and a subjective 

16 requirement. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Allen v. 

17 Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 1995)). "Under the objective requirement, the 

18 prison official's acts or omissions must deprive an inmate of the minimal civilized 

19 

measures oflife's necessities. The subjective requirement, relating to the defendant's 

20 state of mind, requires deliberate indifference. Id. (citing Allen, 48 F.3d at 1087). In 

21 the context of a prisoner's medical needs, the "determination of deliberate indifference 

22 requires an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical 

23 needs and the nature of the defendant's response to that need." McGuckin v. Smith, 97 4 

24 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (overruled on other grounds by WMXTechs., Inc. v 

25 Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

26 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from 

27 arbitrary government action by prohibiting states from depriving people of "life, 

28 

- 9 - 14cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 11
1 liberty, or property without due process oflaw." U.S. Const. amend. XIV. To prevail 

2 on a claim of deprivation of liberty or property without due process oflaw, a plaintiff 

3 must first establish the existence of a protected liberty or property interest. After 

4 meeting this threshold requirement, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that the 

5 defendants failed to provide due process. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 

6 556-57 (1974); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003). A temporary 

7 deprivation of personal property does not constitute a violation of a prisoner's due 

8 process rights unless Plaintiff can show the deprivation imposed "atypical and 

9 significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life," 

IO causing actual harm to the inmate. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). 

11 

12 

2. Ruling of the Court 

The Magistrate Judge found that Defendant's alleged illegitimate basis for 

13 confiscating Plaintiff's items was insufficient to establish Defendant's deliberate 

14 indifference. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that "Defendant's actions do 

15 not demonstrate knowledge and disregard of excessive medical risk because Defendant 

16 did not know whether Plaintiff was allowed to possess the medical devices, he believed 

17 the property was in violation of prison rules, and only temporarily took the property 

18 while determining its permissibility." (ECF No. 30 at 18). 

19 As to the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the Magistrate Judge correctly 

20 concluded "[t]here is no evidence that Plaintiff pursued the state law remedy available 

21 to him under California Government Code §§ 810 et seq. before asserting his 

22 constitutional claim. Therefore, as a matter of law, Defendant is entitled to summary 

23 judgment on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Claim." (ECF No. 30 at 20). The 

24 Magistrate Judge correctly concluded Defendant did not violate Plaintiff's Eighth or 

25 Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

26 III. Motion Requesting a Bad Faith Finding of Defendant's Motion for Summary 

27 Judgment Supporting Declaration 

28 

- 10 - 14cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 11
1 The Motion Requesting a Bad Faith Finding of Defendant's Motion for 

2 Summary Judgment Supporting Declaration is denied. (ECF No. 44). 

3 IV. Ex Pa rte Application Requesting to Know the Status of Plaintiff's Motion for 

4 Reconsideration 

5 Plaintiff's ex parte application "respectfully request[ s] the Court to inform him 

6 of the status of his [motion for reconsideration.]" (ECF No. 49). This Order rules on 

7 the motion for reconsideration. The ex parte application is granted. (ECF No. 49). 

8 V. Conclusion 

9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. 

lO (ECF No. 42). The Order filed on September 14, 2016 and the Judgment filed on 

l l September 14, 2016 are VACATED. (ECF Nos. 37, 38). 

12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion Requesting a Bad Faith Finding of 

13 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Supporting Declaration is DENIED. (ECF 

14 No. 44). 

15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Application Requesting to Know 

16 the Status of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (or New Trial) of the Court's 

17 September 14, 2016 Order Adopting the R&R Granting Defendant's Motion for 

18 Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (ECF No. 49). 

19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Objections to the Report and 

20 Recommendation are OVERRULED. (ECF No. 46). The Report and Recommendation 

21 (ECF No. 30) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendant's motion for summary judgment 

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

23 No. 28) is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against 

24 Plaintiff. 

25 DATED: 

26 

27 

28 

- 11 -

WILLllM ~~/ Q:YEs 

United States District Judge 

14cv2264-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:14-cv-02264-WQH-BGS Document 50 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 11