Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail, et al

Filing 151

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/29/18 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed 4/17/18 (ECF No. 145 ), are ADOPTED infull; Defendant Palmer and plaintiff's claims related to his housing assignment, failure t o protect, defamation, and officers "trying to incite something" are DISMISSED without leave to amend for the reasons set forth in the 8/12/13 screening order (ECF No. 24 ); and Defendants Lopez and Nelson are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process and failure to follow court orders as set forth in the 10/18/16 order (ECF No. 109 ). (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRELL D. HALL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0324 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking

18

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as

19

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On April 17, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

21

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings

22

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 145. Neither party has

23

filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

25

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

26

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed

27

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

28

the proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 17, 2018 (ECF No. 145), are adopted in

3
4

full;
2. Defendant Palmer and plaintiff’s claims related to his housing assignment, failure to

5

protect, defamation, and officers “trying to incite something” are dismissed without leave to

6

amend for the reasons set forth in the August 12, 2013 screening order (ECF No. 24); and

7

3. Defendants Lopez and Nelson are dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely

8

effect service of process and failure to follow court orders as set forth in the October 18, 2016

9

order (ECF No. 109).

10

DATED: May 29, 2018.

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2