Candler v. Stewart et al
Filing
21
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/7/2018 ADOPTING in FULL 13 Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff may proceed on the following claims: (a) Claims against Defendant Lebeck for excessive force and denial of medical care arising un der the Eighth Amendment and a claim arising under the First Amendment for retaliating against Plaintiff for utilization of an inmate grievance procedure; and (b) Claim against Defendant Huynh for denial of medical care arising under the Eighth Amendment. All other claims and Defendants are DISMISSED. (Washington, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEITH CANDLER,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:17-cv-02436 TLN CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
J. STEWART, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On April 25, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which
21
were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings
22
and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff has not 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 April 25, 2018 (ECF No. 13), are adopted in
3
4
5
full.
2. Plaintiff may proceed on the following claims:
(a) Claims against Defendant Lebeck for excessive force and denial of medical
6
care arising under the Eighth Amendment and a claim arising under the First Amendment
7
for retaliating against Plaintiff for utilization of an inmate grievance procedure; and
8
(b) Claim against Defendant Huynh for denial of medical care arising under the
9
Eighth Amendment.
10
3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed.
11
12
Dated: August 7, 2018
13
14
15
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?