Navarro v. Herdon et al

Filing 89

ORDER adopting 84 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/26/13: This action shall proceed on plaintiff's First Amendment denial of access claims against defendants Grannis and O'Brian, as well as the claims and defendants previously found cognizable by the undersigned by order filed September 30, 2011. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO NAVARRO, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:09-cv-1878-KJM-KJN-P vs. DEBRA HERNDON, et al., Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 7, 2012, the magistrate judge filed supplemental findings and 21 recommendation, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 22 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. 23 Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 received de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1 1 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to 2 be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The supplemental findings and recommendations filed December 7, 2012, are 5 adopted in full. 6 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s First Amendment denial of access 7 claims against defendants Grannis and O’Brian, as well as the claims and defendants previously 8 found cognizable by the undersigned by order filed September 30, 2011.1 9 DATED: March 26, 2013. 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 24 25 26 The undersigned previously ruled that this action shall proceed on the following claims (Dkt. No. 79 at 2): • Plaintiff’s First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Kernan, Walker, Baxter, Baker, Sclafani, and Morrow. • Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Grannis and O’Brian. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?