(PC) Hill v. Swarthout ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Kenneth Hill, No. 2:15-cv-2012 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Gary Swarthout, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 | under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants Swarthout, Cappel, 19 | and Sandy violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Compl. at 1-2, 20 | ECF No. 1. On September 30, 2015, plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF 21 | No.4. Defendants did not consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. See generally F&Rs, 22 | ECF No. 61. On January 31, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an order dismissing some of 23 | plaintiffs due process claims without leave to amend. MJ Order (Jan. 31, 2017), ECF No. 9. On 24 | September 30, 2020, this court entered judgment in this case. ECF No. 55. The Ninth Circuit 25 | vacated the September 30, 2020 judgment in light of the magistrate judge’s dismissal of some 26 | claims with prejudice by order instead of by findings and recommendations. See ECF Nos. 60 & 27 | 62. On June 21, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations vacating her 28 | previous order and recommending the dismissal of plaintiffs claims with prejudice for the same 1 | reasons provided for in the January 31, 2017 screening order. See MJ Order at 5-6. The parties 2 | were advised that failure to file objections within fourteen days after being served with the 3 | findings and recommendations may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez 4 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). See generally F&Rs. 5 The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 6 | 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are 7 | reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court ....”). Having reviewed the 8 | file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the 9 | proper analysis. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The magistrate judge’s recommendations filed June 21, 2021 (ECF No. 61) are adopted 12 | in full; and 13 2. Plaintiff's due process claims against defendants Swarthout and Cappel for denying his 14 | disciplinary appeals are dismissed without leave to amend. 15 This order resolves ECF Nos. 61 & 62. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | DATED: July 12, 2021. / 18 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45