(PC) Bland v. Messinger ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, No. 2:20-cv-0051 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JON A. MESSINGER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff claims his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because defendants used 19 excessive force against him. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 20 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 7, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff has not filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 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 February 7, 2020, are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 5) is denied; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 7 proceedings. 8 DATED: April 23, 2020. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28