(PC) Downs v. Jiminez

Opinion

IVORY LEWIS DOWNS, JR., No. 2:22-cv-1021-TLN-AC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER M. JIMINEZ, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Ivory Lewis Downs, Jr. (“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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 10, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 37). This deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any objections. 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. The Court clarifies that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of the Equal Protection Clause against Jiminez, Gonzalez, Tyuen, Bowman, and Humphers. (See ECF No. 37 at5.) As such, contrary to the magistrate judge’s conclusion, this case also proceeds on an equal protection claim against Jiminez, Gonzalez, Tyuen, Bowman, and Humphers. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 37) are ADOPTED as described above; 2. All claims against Defendants Romney, Williamson, Stone, Zavala, Lynch, and Doe | are DISMISSED without leave to amend and the Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE these Defendants; 3. This case proceeds on the (1) excessive force, negligence, and assault and battery against Jiminez, Gonzalez, Tyuen, Bowman, and Humphers; (2) failure to protect and negligence against Hood and Stanfield; (3) failure to train or supervise against Stanfield and Does 2 and 3; (4) violation of the equal protection clause against Jiminez, Gonzalez, Tyuen, Bowman, and Humphers; (5) deliberate indifference and professional negligence against Bergado and Tyler; (6) deliberate indifference and negligence against Curtis; and (7) due process violations against Houghland. All other claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 4. This matter is REFERRED BACK to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. DATED: April 8, 2025 7, TROY L. tH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE