(PC) Wilkins v. Macomber ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEENAN WILKINS, also known as No. 2:16-CV-00475-TLN-DMC Nerrah Brown, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Keenan Wilkins (also known as Nerrah Brown) (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner 19 proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 21 302(c)(21). 22 On September 24, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 23 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that Plaintiff may file objections 24 within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 23.) On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed his “Objections to 25 Magistrate[’]s Findings and Recommendations.” (ECF No. 25.) 26 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 27 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 28 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 1 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 2 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 3 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 4 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 6 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 7 judge’s analysis. 8 Plaintiff’s objections to the recommended dismissals, which he asserts after being granted 9 leave to file an amended complaint to cure his pleading deficiencies yet electing not to do so, are 10 not well taken. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s objections merely raise issues already evaluated — 11 properly and at length — by the magistrate judge in the instant Findings and Recommendations 12 (ECF No. 23) and the Order granting Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint (ECF No. 13 21). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 24, 2019 (ECF No. 23), are 16 adopted in full; 17 2. Claim 2 is DISMISSED, as asserted against Defendants Macomber, Moore, and 18 Ramirez; 19 3. Claims 4, 5, and 6 are DISMISSED; and 20 6. Defendants Moore and Ramirez are DISMISSED from this action. 21 7. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint under Claim 1 (against 22 Defendants Macomber, Harrington, and Lockwood), Claim 2 (against Defendant David), and 23 Claim 3 (against Defendants David, Stewart, Macomber, and Giannelli). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: December 2, 2019 26 27 28