Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05090/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05090-9/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

 On January 4, 2006, Plaintiff was granted a thirty-day extension of time to file an objection.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. MARQUEZ,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-05090-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 91)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

(Doc. 84)

Plaintiff Tommy Holmes (“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 November 21, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was 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 days. Plaintiff filed an objection on

February 13, 2006.1

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.

Case 1:03-cv-05090-AWI -SMS Document 98 Filed 03/22/06 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 his objection, Plaintiff provides new evidence, refuting some of Defendants’ evidence and

offering specific facts concerning what happened when he was in the non-contact visiting cell. 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

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 should 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. The court advised

Plaintiff on July 26, 2004, of the federal summary judgment standards and what evidence Plaintiff

would be required to provide to oppose a motion for summary judgment. See Klingele v.

 Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411 12 (9th Cir.1988) (requiring court to advise pro se prisoner of

 summary judgment requirements under Rule 56). Because the court informed Plaintiff what he

needed to do to oppose a summary judgment motion, the court cannot consider Plaintiff’s

declaration, offered for the first time as part of Plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations. Without considering Plaintiff’s new evidence, the court agrees

the Magistrate Judge properly recommended the court grant Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 21, 2005, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed August 11, 2005, is GRANTED,

thus concluding this action in its entirety; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05090-AWI -SMS Document 98 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2