Miramontes v. Gower et al
Filing
28
ORDER adopting 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 22 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 8/31/16. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PEDRO MIRAMONTES,
12
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-1544 JAM CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
L. GOWER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
18
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
19
Local Rule 302.
20
On July 25, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
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. Neither party has filed
23
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
27
reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record
28
and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 25, 2016, are adopted in full;
3
2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied.
4
DATED: August 31, 2016
5
John A. Mendez___________________________
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?