Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00101/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00101-16/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. L. DeAZEVEDO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND REFERRING MATTER 

BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO SET 

FOR TRIAL

(Docs. 56 and 75)

Plaintiff Timothy Howard, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 20, 2011. This action for damages 

is proceeding on Plaintiff=s amended complaint against Defendants DeAzevedo, Paz, and Stephens 

for retaliating against Plaintiff by searching his cell and confiscating or destroying his personal 

property, in violation of the First Amendment; against Defendant DeAzevedo for retaliating 

against Plaintiff by issuing him a false Rules Violation Report; and against Defendant James for 

depriving Plaintiff of his right to a fair disciplinary hearing by an impartial decision maker, in 

violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 11, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 

Recommendations recommending Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. The 

parties did not file objections. 

Case 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO Document 76 Filed 08/13/14 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), the 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on July 11, 2014, is adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on October 18, 2013, is

DENIED; and

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to set for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO Document 76 Filed 08/13/14 Page 2 of 2