Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00271-30/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW CEJAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MYERS, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-00271 AWI DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

FILED BY DEFENDANTS MYERS, 

TRIMBLE, McGEE AND FISHER 

(Document 174)

Plaintiff Andrew A. Cejas (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint for violation of his First Amendment right to 

practice his religion against Defendants.

On January 11, 2016, Defendants Myers, Trimble, McGee and Fisher filed a motion for 

summary judgment.1 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 April 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Defendants’ motion be granted. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff 

 

1

 Defendants Foston, Van Leer and Pimentel are represented by different counsel and have filed their own motion for 

summary judgment. The motion was addressed by separate Findings and Recommendations. 

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 182 Filed 06/16/16 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

and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff filed 

objections on May 26, 2016. Defendants filed their reply on June 6, 2016.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections and Defendants’ reply, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Plaintiff’s objections are based mainly on his disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s 

evidentiary rulings and interpretation of the evidence. As in his opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment, Plaintiff’s arguments remain based on speculation and/or inadmissible 

hearsay. In fact, the Magistrate Judge addressed many of the arguments that Plaintiff now repeats 

in his objections. Plaintiff also repeats his arguments related to an equal protection issue, though 

this claim was dismissed from this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 20, 2016, are adopted in full; 

2. The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Myers, Trimble, McGee 

and Fisher (Document 132) is GRANTED;

3. Judgment is ENTERED IN FAVOR of Defendants Myers, McGee, 

Fisher and Trimble.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 182 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 2