(PC) Blair v. Pantoja

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARCUS QUINN BLAIR, JR., No. 1:23-cv-00574-NODJ-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 13 v. DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS L. PANTOJA, et al., (ECF No. 17) 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On October 19, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed against Defendants Pantoja, Barcena, and the unidentified “Doe” officers for excessive force and against Defendants Ybarra, Gentry and Gaines for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 17.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended that all other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Id.) 26 The Court served the findings and recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections had to be filed within 14 days after service and that the failure to file timely objections ///// may result in a waiver of rights on appeal. (Id. at 2), citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the deadline to do so has expired.

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 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.

9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 19, 2023 (ECF No. 17) are 11 adopted in full; 12 2. This action shall proceed against Defendants Pantoja, Barcena, and the 13 unidentified “Doe” officers for excessive force and against Defendants Ybarra, 14 Gentry and Gaines for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 15 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state 16 claims upon which relief may be granted; and 17 4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

18 DATED: January 8, 2024.