(PC) Campbell v. Tanton

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SENARBLE CAMPBELL, No. 2:18-cv-00671-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER JOSHUA J. TANTON, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through appointed counsel, 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 February 10, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 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 ///// . . . .”). 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 February 10, 2020, which screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint, are adopted in full.

6 2. The following claim are DISMISSED for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: 8 a. the Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious 9 medical needs against defendant Sweis; 10 b. the failure to protect claim against defendants Spangler, Morton, and M. Smith; 11 and 12 c. the ADA/RA claims against all defendants.

13 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.

15 DATED: October 28, 2020