(PC)Hill v. Rios ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:18-cv-03224-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RIOS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Cymeyon Hill (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 12, 2020, 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. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff 23 filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on March 2, 2020. (ECF No. 22.) 24 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 25 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 26 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 27 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 28 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 1 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 2 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the 4 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s 5 analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 12, 2020 (ECF No. 21), are adopted 8 in full; 9 2. Defendants Rios and White are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice; and 10 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service of 11 process of the Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need 12 against Defendants Gebheart, Aube, and Curtis pursuant to the Court’s E-Service pilot program 13 for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: April 14, 2020 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28