(PC) Shepard v. Mohyuddin ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL SHEPARD, No. 2:20-cv-01445-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. KELSO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 11, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 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 January 11, 2021, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate 6 || indifference based on failure to treat his neuropathy and damaged cornea against defendants 7 | Mohyuddin, Malakkla, and Adams; 8 3. All other claims in the complaint are dismissed without prejudice; 9 4. The court concludes after reviewing the file that the appointment of counsel to 10 || represent plaintiff is appropriate for the limited purpose of assisting plaintiff with discovery and 11 | pretrial motion practice, if any. The matter is referred to the supervisor of this court’s pro bono 12 | panel, Sujean Park Castelhano, to identify an appropriate attorney; and 13 5. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service on 14 || defendants Mohyuddin, Malakkla, and Adams. 15 | DATED: March 31, 2021. 16 17 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28