Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00200/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00200-15/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 - 07cv0200

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANFORD P. BRYANT

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0200 JM(PCL)

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE:

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

vs.

 TIM OCHOA, Warden; et al. 

Defendants.

On December17, 2010, the court issued an Order Adopting Report and Recommendation re:

Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Order”). (Ct. Dkt. 206). Subsequent to the

issuance of the Order, the court received Objections from Plaintiff. Under the prisoner mailbox rule,

see Miles v., Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1106 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999), the Objections were timely. This

Amended Order addresses the Objections.

The court notes that Plaintiff raises essentially the same arguments raised in opposition to

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In broad brush, Plaintiff argues that the R & R sets forth

an “erroneous review of the Plaintiff’s version of the facts, in that the court overlooked and/or

disregarded Plaintiff’s version of the facts and chose to believe Defendant’s [] version over Plaintiff’s

version.” (Objections at pp. 2-12). With respect to the majority of the 21 Defendants, Plaintiff fails

to cite particular evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Such generalized and conclusory

arguments are insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s summary judgment burden. See Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Furthermore, where specific evidence is cited in opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment

Case 3:07-cv-00200-JM-PCL Document 209 Filed 01/04/11 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 - 07cv0200

motion, the court notes that certain portions of the record are taken out of context or fail to address

the thorough analysis of the factual record as set forth in the R & R. Rather than address the factual

record and legal arguments a second time, the court specifically incorporates Magistrate Judge Lewis’s

thorough and thoughtful R & R. 

In sum, the R & R is adopted in its entirety and the court enters judgment in favor of

Defendants and against Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 4, 2011

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-00200-JM-PCL Document 209 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 2