(PC) Williams v. Director of Corrections

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 JERREL WILLIAMS, No. 2:19-CV-2611-KJM DMC P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 WONG, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern 20 District of California local rules. 21 On October 27, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 23 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations, ECF No. 12, are adopted in full; 4 2. Cates and Lizarraga are dismissed as defendants to this action for failure to 5 | state a claim; 6 3. The case shall proceed on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical care 7 || claim against defendant Wong only; and 8 4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further 9 || pretrial proceedings. 10 | DATED: January 11, 2022. 1] 12 B CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ! The court does not adopt the apparent typographical errors on the first page, which indicate plaintiff did not file a 27 | first amended complaint. See Finding and Recommendation at 1, ECF No. 1. Th operative complaint is □□□□□□□□□□□ first amended complaint. First Am. Compl., ECF No. 8. The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to file a second 28 || amended complaint. Prev. Order (Aug. 4, 2021), ECF No. 10, and plaintiff has not complied.