Hammitt v. Butte County Jail, 2:16-cv-2644 KJM KJN P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180927746
Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 June 19, 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
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 June 19, 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 t..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 June 19, 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. 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 June 19, 2018, are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' summary judgment motion (ECF No. 38) is denied; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.
Source: Leagle
