Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05255/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05255-3/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

ISADORE HENRY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LINDA MELCHING, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05255-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 95)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 84)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 74)

Plaintiff, Isadore Henry (“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 27, 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 22, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-05255-AWI-DLB Document 99 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 4
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. The court

finds the arguments made in Plaintiff’s objections do not require

the court to not adopt the Findings and Recommendations. While

most of Plaintiff’s arguments in the objections were addressed by

the Magistrate Judge and no further comment is needed, the Court

finds it necessary to address two arguments made in the

objections.

In the objections, Plaintiff adamantly disagrees with

Defendant’s proposed fact, found undisputed by the Magistrate

Judge, that no smoking signs are clearly posted in the areas

where smoking is prohibited. Plaintiff argues that these signs

were only posted after he began to complain. Even assuming

Plaintiff is correct, it does not change the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusions regarding Defendants knowledge that inmates were

smoking in violation of prison rules. The fact signs may not

have always been posted does not mean Defendants’ knew of and

disregarded Plaintiff’s rights.

In the objections, Plaintiff also offers a new fact

regarding Defendant Phair. Plaintiff now states that Defendant

Phair could see inmates smoking and did nothing to stop them. 

Plaintiff did not make this assertion to the Magistrate Judge. A

new theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings

and Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633,

638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by United

Case 1:03-cv-05255-AWI-DLB Document 99 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 4
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

States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). Factual

assertions that which could have been but were not presented to

the Magistrate Judge ahoudl be given no consideration when the

court is deciding whether to adopt Findings and Recommendations 

Sundaram v. County of Santa Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal.

2001); Beam System, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL

423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal. 1997). "[A]llowing parties to litigate

fully their case before the magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to

change their strategy and present a different theory to the

district court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates

Act." Greenhow, 863 F.2d at 638. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 27, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed January

28, 2005, is GRANTED as to defendants Alameida, Prunty, Quintero,

Witcher, Phair, Hood, Branaman, McKillip, Rafeedie, Calderon,

Sullivan, Quinones, Vasquez, and Hurdle;

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed January

28, 2005, is DENIED as to defendants Burgeis and Shelton;

4. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed November

5, 2004, is DENIED;

5. The case proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

against defendants Burgeis and Shelton only; and

6. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

Case 1:03-cv-05255-AWI-DLB Document 99 Filed 09/15/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05255-AWI-DLB Document 99 Filed 09/15/05 Page 4 of 4