Romero v. Spearman et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/6/2022 ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations in full, DISMISSING Claim #2 of the First Amended Complaint, and DISMISSING Defendants M.E. Spearman and U. Baniga. This case proceeds solely on Claim One of the First Amended Complaint. The Clerk is DIRECTED to update the spelling of Defendant Nguyen's last name on the docket sheet. (Perdue, C.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES ROMERO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:18-cv-1590 KJM AC P

v.

ORDER

M.E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

17
18

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On July 13, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which were

21

served on plaintiff, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and

22

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff has not filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

24
25

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

26

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

27

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

28

/////
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 issued July 13, 2022 (ECF No. 25), are

5
6
7
8
9
10

ADOPTED in full;
2. The following claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2):
a. Claim Two of the First Amended Complaint (putative Bivens claim against
defendant Luong Nguyen), and
b. Defendants M.E. Spearman and U. Baniga;

11

3. This case proceeds solely on Claim One of the First Amended Complaint (Eighth

12

Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant R. Wilson and defendant Luong

13

Nguyen), and

14

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to change the spelling of defendant Luong Nguyen’s

15

name in the case caption of the docket from “Luong Nygun” to “Luong Nguyen.” See ECF No.

16

21 at 1 (First Amended Complaint).

17

DATED: September 6, 2022.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2