(PC) Rood v. Lockwood ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLTON JAMES ROOD, No. 2:19-cv-1806 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LOCKWOOD, 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 March 27, 2023, the magistrate judge filed an order and findings and 21 recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 22 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 23 F&R, ECF No. 70. 24 The court presumes 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 Although no party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations themselves, 4 | plaintiff has filed objections to the order on his motion to compel discovery. ECF No. 71. 5 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to object to non-dispositive orders issued by 6 || magistrate judges and requires the district judge to “modify or set aside any part of the order that 7 || is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Plaintiff objects on the ground that the order denied 8 | further production of requests filed in the jail’s tablet system. ECF No. 71. However, plaintiff’s 9 || motion to compel production was granted in part and defendants were ordered to produce “any 10 || request in their possession, custody, or control that plaintiff submitted between August 2, 2019, 11 || through September 11, 2019, that are related to defendants, to interference with plaintiff's 12 || medical care, and to uses of force.” F&R at 8. The magistrate judge’s order is not clearly 13 || erroneous or contrary to law and the objections are overruled. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 27, 2023 (ECF No. 70), are adopted in 16 |} full. 17 2. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions (ECF No. 62) is denied. 18 3. Within forty-five days of this order, defendants may take plaintiff's deposition either in 19 || person or by video conference. Defendants shall serve all parties with the notice required by 20 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1) at least fourteen days before such deposition. 21 4. Plaintiff shall fully participate in his deposition. If plaintiff refuses to fully participate 22 || in his deposition, defendants may bring a motion for sanctions within fourteen days of being 23 || advised of plaintiffs refusal. 24 5. Plaintiffs objections to the March 27, 2023 order on his motion to compel (ECF 25 || No. 71) are overruled. 26 6. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 27 || proceedings. /\ (] 28 | DATED: May 17, 2023. L cu LY A / ( Q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE