Wilkins v. Macomber et al
Filing
28
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/2/19 ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations. Claim 2 is DISMISSED, as asserted against Defendants Macomber, Moore, and Ramirez. Claims 4, 5, and 6 are DISMISSED. Defendants Moore and R amirez are DISMISSED from this action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint under Claim 1 (against Defendants Macomber, Harrington, and Lockwood), Claim 2 (against Defendant David), and Claim 3 (against Defendants David, Stewart, Macomber, and Giannelli). (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
KEENAN WILKINS, also known as
Nerrah Brown,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:16-CV-00475-TLN-DMC
ORDER
v.
JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff Keenan Wilkins (also known as Nerrah Brown) (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner
19
proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was
20
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
21
302(c)(21).
22
On September 24, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
23
which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that Plaintiff may file objections
24
within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 23.) On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed his “Objections to
25
Magistrate[’]s Findings and Recommendations.” (ECF No. 25.)
26
This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which
27
objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
28
Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As
1
1
to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court
2
assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United
3
States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
4
reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
5
Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court
6
finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate
7
judge’s analysis.
8
Plaintiff’s objections to the recommended dismissals, which he asserts after being granted
9
leave to file an amended complaint to cure his pleading deficiencies yet electing not to do so, are
10
not well taken. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s objections merely raise issues already evaluated —
11
properly and at length — by the magistrate judge in the instant Findings and Recommendations
12
(ECF No. 23) and the Order granting Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint (ECF No.
13
21). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 24, 2019 (ECF No. 23), are
16
17
18
adopted in full;
2. Claim 2 is DISMISSED, as asserted against Defendants Macomber, Moore, and
Ramirez;
19
3. Claims 4, 5, and 6 are DISMISSED; and
20
6. Defendants Moore and Ramirez are DISMISSED from this action.
21
7. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint under Claim 1 (against
22
Defendants Macomber, Harrington, and Lockwood), Claim 2 (against Defendant David), and
23
Claim 3 (against Defendants David, Stewart, Macomber, and Giannelli).
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2019
26
27
28
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?