Corral v. Warren et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/11/2020 ADOPTING 49 Findings and Recommendations in full and DENYING defendants' 38 Motion to Dismiss. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DYLAN SCOTT CORRAL,

12

No. 2:18-cv-00024-TLN-CKD

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

WARREN, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Dylan Scott Corral (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 and is before the Court on Defendants’

20

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 38.)

21

On January 13, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which

22

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

23

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 49.) Neither

24

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

25

Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.

26

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

27

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

28

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1
2

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings
and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 13, 2019 (ECF No. 49.), are adopted

5

in full; and

6

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No 38) is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED

8

Dated: February 11, 2020

9
10
11
12

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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