1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAAHDI ABDUL COLEMAN, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:21-cv-00625-TLN-EFB (PC) 13 v. 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ORDER CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff proceeds without counsel in this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 7 and September 18, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and 22 recommendations which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections 23 to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF Nos. 97, 24 100.) These deadlines have passed, and no objections have been filed. 25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 28 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 1 | Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 | the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 7, 2025, (ECF No. 97), and 5 September 18, 2025, (ECF No. 100), are ADOPTED in full; 6 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 84), is GRANTED; 7 3. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; 8 4. Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendant Kelley are 9 DISMISSED with prejudice; 10 5. Paragraphs 107, 11, 159-177, and 203-207 are STRICKEN from the Fourth Amended 11 Complaint; 12 6. Defendants Kelley, Lynch, Stewart, Jones, Morgan, Fredrick, Contreras, and Tyler are 13 DISMISSED; 14 7. The case shall proceed on Plaintiff's claims against: (1) Freriks, Burkheart, 15 Collinsworth, Manson, and Nguyen for violation of the First Amendment and (2) 16 Thompson for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment based solely concerning the 17 conducting of cell-side consultations; and 18 8. The case is REFERRED BACK to the assigned magistrate judge for further 19 proceedings. 20 | DATED: October 24, 2025

22 TROY L. NUNLEY 73 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28