Hernandez v. Thomas

Filing 73

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/8/2020 ADOPTING 72 Findings and Recommendations in full. Defendant's 56 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-CV-1803-KJM-DMC-P

v.

ORDER

THOMAS,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under

17
18

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

19

Eastern District of California local rules.
On October 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations,

20
21

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections

22

within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been

23

filed.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

24
25

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

26

reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations

27

of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate]

28

/////
1

1

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

2

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

The findings and recommendations filed October 3, 2019, are adopted in

6

2.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 56) is denied; and

7

3.

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further

5

full;

8

pretrial proceedings.

9

DATED: January 8, 2020.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2