(PC) Hill v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Kenneth Hill, No. 2:15-cv-2012 KJM AC P Plaintiff, ORDER v.

Gary Swarthout, et al.,

1S Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants Swarthout, Cappel, and Sandy violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Compl. at 1-2, ECF No. 1. On September 30, 2015, plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF No.4. Defendants did not consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. See generally F&Rs, ECF No. 61. On January 31, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an order dismissing some of plaintiffs due process claims without leave to amend. MJ Order (Jan. 31, 2017), ECF No. 9. On September 30, 2020, this court entered judgment in this case. ECF No. 55. The Ninth Circuit vacated the September 30, 2020 judgment in light of the magistrate judge’s dismissal of some claims with prejudice by order instead of by findings and recommendations. See ECF Nos. 60 & 62. On June 21, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations vacating her previous order and recommending the dismissal of plaintiffs claims with prejudice for the same reasons provided for in the January 31, 2017 screening order. See MJ Order at 5-6. The parties were advised that failure to file objections within fourteen days after being served with the findings and recommendations may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). See generally F&Rs.

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. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s recommendations filed June 21, 2021 (ECF No. 61) are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff's due process claims against defendants Swarthout and Cappel for denying his disciplinary appeals are dismissed without leave to amend.

This order resolves ECF Nos. 61 & 62.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 12, 2021. / CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE