Underwood v. Cox et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 01/10/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

ANDRE UNDERWOOD,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-00597-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF NOS. 9, 10, 14 & 39)
R. COX and C. STANLEY,

10

Defendants.

11
12

Andre Underwood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

13

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred

14

to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

15

On December 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and

16

recommendations, recommending that all claims and defendants, except for Plaintiff’s claim

17

against Defendants R. Cox and C. Stanley for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on

18

conditions of confinement (specifically the lack of outdoor exercise), be dismissed. (ECF No.

19

39, pgs. 12-13).

20
21

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
recommendations within fourteen days. No objections were filed.

22

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

23

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

24

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

25

analysis.

26

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

27

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on December 7,

28

2017, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
1

1

2. All claims and defendants, except for Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants R. Cox

2

and C. Stanley for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on conditions of

3

confinement (specifically the lack of outdoor exercise), are DISMISSED; and

4

3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2