(PC) Payne v. Baser ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVANCE ROSS PAYNE, No. 2:20-cv-00553-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BASER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Javance Ross Payne (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 18 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 April 2, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff has 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 50.) 24 Plaintiff seems to suggest that he did not receive the “proper assistance” when filing his 25 complaints and appeals in light of his learning, hearing, and cognitive disabilities, and therefore 26 administrative remedies were “technically unavailable” to him. (See id.) Plaintiff argues, 27 therefore, that Defendants C. Baser and Crisanto (collectively, “Defendants”) are not entitled to 28 summary judgment. (See id.) As the magistrate judge noted in the findings and 1 || recommendations, Plaintiff still does not cite to any legal authority in his objections to support the 2 | assertion that these conditions, standing alone, make administrative remedies unavailable to 3 | Plaintiff. 4 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 5 | F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 6 | See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 7 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 8 | supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 2, 2021 (ECF No. 47), are ADOPTED 11 | IN FULL; and 12 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | DATED: August 4, 2021 /) “ \/ Lu 16 — _Z Troy L. Nunley } 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28