Williams v. Daszko et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/14/2016 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37 are ADOPTED in FULL; the motion filed by Mathis 19 for summary judgment is DENIED; the motion filed by defendant Daszko 21 for summary judgment is DENIED; this action shall proceed on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Mathis and Daszko; and this case is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HILLIARD WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1248 KJM AC P

v.

ORDER

JAROM A. DASZKO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

17
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.
On February 8, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20
21

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

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 37. Neither party

23

has 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).

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

2

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

3

that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 8, 2016, are adopted in full.

5

2. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Mathis, ECF No. 19, is denied.

6

3. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Daszko, ECF No. 21, is denied.

7

4. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants

8
9

Mathis and Daszko.
5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial

10

proceedings.

11

DATED: March 14, 2016.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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