(PC) Baker v. Lynch

Opinion

TIMOTHY RAY BAKER, No. 2:19-CV-2617-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER J. HOWARD, et al., Defendants. 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: 1. The findings and recommendations filed on April 25, 2022, are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 48, to proceed on the first amended complaint is granted; 3. 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; 4. Plaintiff’s third claim for medical deliberate indifference is dismissed; 5. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order; and 6. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. DATED: September 14, 2022.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE