(PC) Baker v. Lynch et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TIMOTHY RAY BAKER,
J. HOWARD, et al.,
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by
Eastern District of California local rules.
On April 25, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations,
which were served on the parties and contained notice that the parties may file objections within
the time specified therein. No party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United
States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations
of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate]
court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The findings and recommendations filed on April 25, 2022, are adopted in
Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 48, 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 indifference is dismissed;
Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
within 30 days of the date of this order; and
The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further
DATED: September 14, 2022.
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?