(PC) Williams v. Prudhel

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY JAMES WILLIAMS, No. 2:22-cv-02250 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOSHUA PRUDHEL, 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 29, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not 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 29, 2023 are adopted in full. 5 2. This action will proceed on the following claims: 6 A. Claims arising under the First Amendment based upon retaliation for protected 7 conduct against defendants Vertelli, Groves and Herr as alleged in paragraphs 5-13 8 in plaintiff's amended complaint. 9 B. Claims arising under the First Amendment based upon retaliation for protected 10 conduct against defendants Vertelli, Rios, Benson, Simmons and Groves as alleged 11 in paragraphs 23-43 of plaintiff's amended complaint, and a claim for exposure to 12 harmful conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 13 the same defendants relating to plaintiff's fall down the stairs alleged in paragraph 14 43. 15 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed. 16 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for all further proceedings. 17 | DATED: April 3, 2024.

19 40 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28