(PC) Lorenz v. Movey ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK LORENZ, No. 1:23-cv-01243-NODJ-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS 14 MOVEY, et al., (ECF No. 14) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Patrick Lorenz is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 26, 2024, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 21 recommendations, recommending this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 22 excessive force claim against Defendant Movey and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to 23 serious medical needs claim against Defendant Campbell, with any remaining claims against any 24 defendant to be dismissed. (ECF No. 14.) The findings and recommendations were served on 25 Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of 26 service. (Id. at 2-3.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 27 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 28 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 1 || denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 2 || by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 3 || ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 26, 2024 (ECF No. 14) are 7 adopted in full; 8 2. This action proceeds only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 9 against Defendant Movey and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious 10 medical needs claim against Defendant Campbell, in their individual capacities; 11 3. Any remaining claims against any defendant are dismissed; and 12 4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 13 | DATED: February 27, 2024. 14 6 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28