(PC) Brownlee v. Henry et al
Filing
34
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/15/2020 ADOPTING in full 15 Findings and Recommendations. All claims and defendants other than a claim for excessive force arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Siebe rt, Henry and Woodfill and a claim against defendant Carlisle for failure to protect from violence, also arising under the Eighth Amendment as detailed on page 7 of plaintiff's complaint, are DISMISSED. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE,
12
No. 2:19-cv-2056 KJM CKD P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ORDER
D. HENRY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
17
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
19
by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On April 2, 2020, 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. Plaintiff has not filed objections to
23
the findings and recommendations.1
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
27
28
1
On April 12, 2020, the court received a document from plaintiff titled “objections to findings
and recommendations.” In that document, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s April 2, 2020
order concerning e-service, not any findings and recommendations submitted to the undersigned.
1
1
de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law
2
by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court
3
. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
4
supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1. The findings and recommendations filed April 2, 2020 are adopted in full;
7
2. All claims and defendants other than a claim for excessive force arising under the
8
Eighth Amendment against defendants Siebert, Henry and Woodfill and a claim against defendant
9
Carlisle for failure to protect from violence, also arising under the Eighth Amendment as detailed
10
11
on page 7 of plaintiff’s complaint, are dismissed; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial
12
proceedings.
13
DATED: October 15, 2020.
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?