Castillo v. Ochoa et al
Filing
18
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/10/2020 ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations in full; Defendants Parks and Orozco, and any claims plaintiff might be attempting to raise implicitly against them, are DISMISSED; and This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service of process of the Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Ochoa using the court's EService pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
LEANDRO LEONEL GONZALEZ
CASTILLO,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
No. 2:18-cv-0767-KJM-EFB P
ORDER
v.
E. OCHOA, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
19
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
20
by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On May 4, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were
22
served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and
23
recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the
24
findings and recommendations.
25
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,
26
602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed
27
de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law
28
by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court
1
1
. . . .”). 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 May 4, 2020, are adopted in full;
5
2. Defendants Parks and Orozco, and any claims plaintiff might be attempting to raise
6
7
implicitly against them, are DISMISSED; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service of
8
process of the Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Ochoa using the court’s E-
9
Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California.
10
DATED: July 10, 2020.
11
12
13
14
15
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?