(PC) Hardney v. Warren

E.D. California

(PC) Hardney v. Warren

DecidedJanuary 15, 2020

Docket2:16-cv-00172

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Hardney v. Warren ((PC) Hardney v. Warren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Hardney v. Warren, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN HARDNEY, No. 2:16-cv-00172-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. WARREN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 12, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 12, 2019, are adopted in full. 5 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED in part. The excessive 6 force claims against defendants Pogue and Hickman and the failure to intervene claim against 7 defendant Almodovar are dismissed for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s findings and 8 recommendations. The motion is denied in all other respects. 9 3. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 78) is DENIED. 10 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 11 proceedings. 12 DATED: January 14, 2020. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN HARDNEY, No. 2:16-cv-00172-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. WARREN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 12, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 12, 2019, are adopted in full. 5 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED in part. The excessive 6 force claims against defendants Pogue and Hickman and the failure to intervene claim against 7 defendant Almodovar are dismissed for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s findings and 8 recommendations. The motion is denied in all other respects. 9 3. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 78) is DENIED. 10 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 11 proceedings. 12 DATED: January 14, 2020. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Hardney v. Warren, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-hardney-v-warren-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack