(PC) Robinson v. Acuna

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 7, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-01629·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVAUGHN ROBINSON, No. 2:22-CV-1629-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ALEXANDER ACUNA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern 19 District of California local rules. 20 On June 13, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 22 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations were filed. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 13, 2023 (ECF No. 28) are ADOPTED IN 3 FULL; 4 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED as to all claims against 5 Defendant Phelps; 6 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs claims related 7 to the conditions of confinement; 8 4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs claim that she 9 was denied showers; 10 5. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs claim of 11 sexual exploitation; 12 6. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint addressing the defects identified in the 13 Magistrate Judge’s June 13, 2023 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 28); 14 7. Ifno first amended complaint is filed within 30 days of the date of this order, the action 15 shall proceed on Plaintiff's original complaint on her excessive force claims against 16 Defendants Acuna and Jones only; and 17 8. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 18 | Date: August 4, 2023 19 ry /) 20 “ \/ Mle 21 ZN Troy L. Nunley> } 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

(PC) Robinson v. Acuna, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

(PC) Robinson v. Acuna ((PC) Robinson v. Acuna) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Pan-American Petroleum Co.
24 F.2d 206 (S.D. California, 1927)