(PC) Baker v. Lynch et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/14/22 ADOPTING in full 49 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 48 Plaintiff's motion to proceed on the first amended complaint. This action proceeds on the first amended complaint on Plaintiff's claims for retaliation against Defendant Howard, and Plaintiff's claim for failure to protect against Defendants Howard, Hontz, Frederick, Peterson, and Roth. Plaintiff's third claim for medical deliberate in difference is DISMISSED. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. The matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY RAY BAKER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:19-CV-2617-KJM-DMC-P ORDER J. HOWARD, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On April 25, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 which were served on the parties and contained notice that the parties may file objections within 22 the time specified therein. No party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 24 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 25 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 26 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 27 court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed on April 25, 2022, are adopted in 2. Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 48, to proceed on the first amended complaint 3. This action proceeds on the first amended complaint on Plaintiff’s claims 3 full; 4 5 6 is granted; 7 for retaliation against Defendant Howard, and Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect against 8 Defendants Howard, Hontz, Frederick, Peterson, and Roth; 9 4. Plaintiff’s third claim for medical deliberate indifference is dismissed; 10 5. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 11 12 within 30 days of the date of this order; and 6. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further 13 pretrial proceedings. 14 DATED: September 14, 2022. 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?