Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail, 2:13-cv-0324 KJM AC P. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180531893 Visitors: 10
Filed: May 30, 2018
Latest Update: May 30, 2018
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 17, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations
More

ORDER

Plaintiff, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 17, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 145. Neither 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 17, 2018 (ECF No. 145), are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Palmer and plaintiff's claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers "trying to incite something" are dismissed without leave to amend for the reasons set forth in the August 12, 2013 screening order (ECF No. 24); and

3. Defendants Lopez and Nelson are dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process and failure to follow court orders as set forth in the October 18, 2016 order (ECF No. 109).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer