United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2024

(PC) Beeson v. Warden

(PC) Beeson v. Warden
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided November 8, 2024
(PC) Beeson v. Warden

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TAYLOR A. BEESON, No. 2:23-cv-1621 DJC CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER WARDEN F.C.I. HERLONG, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On July 19, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that objections could be filed.1 The time for filing objections has expired and Plaintiff has not filed objections.

24 Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant On October 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued separate Finding and Recommendations (ECF No. 22) that will be addressed in a subsequent order.

1 | to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully | effective.

3 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 | (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and || recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's | analysis.

9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 19, 2024, are adopted in full; 11 2. All claims other than a claim for excessive use of force in violation of the | Eighth Amendment and claim for retaliation for protected conduct arising under the | First Amendment against defendant Lt. Birtwell are dismissed; and 14 3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial | proceedings.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 | Dated: _November 7, 2024 “Daal J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.