(PC) Ardds v. Martin et al

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/10/2025 ADOPTING 90 The Findings and Recommendations in full; GRANTING 77 Motion for Summary Judgment. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:20-cv-0133-TLN-CSK

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

V. KIEU, C. LUNDGREN AND J.
LEVIN,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Antoine L. Ardds (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil

19

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

20

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On January 16, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which

22

were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and

23

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Following an extension of time, plaintiff

24

filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

25

The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

26

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

27

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

28

magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate]
1

1

court[.]”). Having reviewed the entire file, including the objections, the Court finds the findings

2

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 90), are ADOPTED in full; and

5

2. Defendants’ summary judgment motion, (ECF No. 77), is GRANTED.

6

Date: March 10, 2025

7
8
9
10
11
12

___________________________________
TROY L. NUNLEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2