(PC) Murray v. Harrington

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 PAUL CATONO MURRAY, No. 2:21-cv-01936-KJM-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HARRINGTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 1, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 25 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See 26 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the court adopts in part the findings and recommendations to the extent 1 | the magistrate judge recommends granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, because 2 | plaintiffs due process claim has been rendered moot. See Brown v. Marshall, No. 07-0956, 3 | 2012 WL 12906131, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 4 | No. 07-0956, 2012 WL 12906132 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012), aff'd, 538 F. App’x 825 (9th Cir. 5 || 2013). As to plaintiffs equal protection claim, defendants’ initial failure to follow CDCR policy 6 || and consider plaintiff for transfer to an all-women’s facility, absent more, does not rise to the 7 | level of a constitutional violation. See Stevens v. Martinez, No. 22-00740, 2022 WL 17978278, at 8 || *4(E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 22-00740, 2023 9 | WL 2143259 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023), appeal dismissed, No. 23-15321, 2023 WL 5674593 (9th 10 | Cir. June 28, 2023). Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim as 11 | well. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 1, 2024 (ECF No. 39), are adopted as 14 | described above; 15 2. Defendants’ July 17, 2023, motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED; 16 3. Judgment is entered for defendants; and 17 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 18 | DATED: April 22, 2024. 19

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28