(PC) Uhuru v. Singh ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KOHEN DIALLO UHURU, No. 2:20-cv-01664-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. SINGH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Kohen Diallo Uhuru (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 18 this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 9, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which 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. 11.) On January 23 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 21), which 24 have been considered by the Court. 25 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 26 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 27 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 28 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 1 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 2 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 3 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 4 Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 6 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 9, 2020 (ECF No. 11), are adopted 9 in full; and 10 2. All claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint, but for the claim alleging inadequate dental care 11 against Defendant Scamurra, are DISMISSED on grounds that they are improperly joined. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: January 19, 2021 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28