Purdy v. Fox et al
Filing
25
ORDER adopting in full 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/18/18. Defendant Fox is DISMISSED. All claims against defendants Rhinehart and Scott other than (1) a claim for denial of free exercise of religi on, guaranteed under the First Amendment, against defendants Rhinehart and Scott as detailed in claim 1 of Plaintiff's amended complaint, and (2) a claim for retaliation for exercise of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights against defendant Scott as detailed in claim 2 of Plaintiff's amended complaint, be dismissed. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JIHAD AL-HAKIM PURDY,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:17-cv-2518-TLN-CKD
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
ROBERT W. FOX, 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 October 25, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
21
which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff has
23
not filed 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 reviewed
27
the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
28
the magistrate judge’s analysis.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 25, 2018 (ECF No. 17), are adopted
3
in full;
4
2. Defendant Fox is dismissed; and
5
3. All claims against defendants Rhinehart and Scott other than (1) a claim for denial of
6
free exercise of religion, guaranteed under the First Amendment, against defendants Rhinehart
7
and Scott as detailed in claim 1 of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, and (2) a claim for retaliation
8
for exercise of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights against defendant Scott as detailed in claim 2 of
9
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, be dismissed.
10
11
Dated: December 18, 2018
12
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?