(PC) Eckstrom v. Barker

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CARL ECKSTROM, No. 2:16-cv-00275 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On November 18, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 53. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”).

28 ///// Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 18, 2019, are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendants Martel, Smith, Spain, Edgar, and Pearson are dismissed from this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim; 7 3. Plaintiff’s first theory in support of his deliberate indifference claims, premised on the alleged denial of assignments to psychological treatment and therapy groups, be dismissed against defendant Dovey in his individual capacity; and 10 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.

12 DATED: January 8, 2020.