(PC) Maldonado v. Howtz ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE SANTIAGO MALDONADO, No. 2:21-cv-01080-JAM-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HOWTZ, 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 pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 9, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 27 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 28 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 9, 2022, are adopted in full. 3 2. The Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement and civil conspiracy claims against 4 all defendants are dismissed without leave to amend. 5 3. This case shall proceed on the First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants 6 Howtz and Arredando. 7 8 Dated: May 11, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez 9 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28