(PC) Puckett v. Moreno ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DURELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, No. 2:22-cv-00650-WBS-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 D. MORENO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On January 23, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 23, 2023, are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiffs First Amendment claim against defendant Haynes is dismissed as non- 4 || cognizable;! 5 3. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims remain pending against defendants Smith, 6 | Haynes, Moreno, and Williams; and 7 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 8 | proceedings consistent with this Order. 9 | Dated: February 27, 2023 td □ ak. Ld, KE 10 WILLIAMB.SHUBB □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 *6 □ The court notes that plaintiff raises additional allegations regarding the First 27 | Amendment claim in his objections. (See Docket No. 17.) Because these additional allegations were not raised in the Second Amended Complaint, the court does not consider them in assessing 28 | the sufficiency of plaintiff’s First Amendment claim.