Spence v. Beard, et al.

Filing 92

ORDER ADOPTING 90 Findings and Recommendations in full signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 01/16/20 GRANTING 61 Motion to Amend the Complaint as to his retaliation claims against Sgt. Chambers, and DENIED in all other respects. This action shall proceed solely on the retaliation claims raised in Plaintiff's 89 03/07/19 Third Amended Complaint, against Defendants Kaur and Sgt. Chambers, based on actions taken prior to the RVR hearing on 11/18/16. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GERALD SPENCE,

12

No. 2:16-cv-01828-TLN-KJN

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

G. KAUR, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Gerald Spence (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil

18

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On December 20, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 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. (ECF No. 90.) On January

23

6, 2020, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

24

(ECF No. 91.)

25

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

26

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

27

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

28

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court
1

1

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United

2

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

3

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

4

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court

5

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate

6

judge’s analysis.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 20, 2019 (ECF No. 90), are

9
10
11
12

adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED as to his retaliation claims
against Sgt. Chambers, and DENIED in all other respects; and
3. This action shall proceed solely on the retaliation claims raised in Plaintiff’s Third

13

Amended Complaint, filed on March 7, 2019 (ECF No. 89), against Defendants Kaur and Sgt.

14

Chambers, based on actions taken prior to the RVR hearing on November 18, 2016.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2020

17
18
19
20

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2