(PC) Hampton v. Austin ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY G. HAMPTON, JR., No. 2:20-CV-1001-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LORI W. AUSTIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On February 15, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been 23 filed. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 27 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 28 ///// 1 | court....”). 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 15, 2022, are adopted in 5 | full; 6 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiffs original complaint against 7 || Defendant Welch only on Plaintiffs claim that, despite Plaintiffs suicidal ideation, Defendant 8 | Welch “did nothing”; 9 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 10 4. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 11 | pre-trial proceedings. 12 | DATED: May 23, 2022. 13 14 ee 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28