(PC) Green v. Nangalama, et al, No. 2:2013cv02390 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/31/2016 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 are ADOPTED in FULL; Defendant's 20 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED; and this action shall proceed on plaintiff's claims against defendant Nangalama. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Green v. Nangalama, et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LONZELL GREEN, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-2390 KJM CMK P Plaintiff, v. ORDER ANDREW NANGALAMA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 15, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 27 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 15, 2016, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 20, is denied; and 4 3. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claims against defendant Nangalama. 5 Dated: March 31, 2016 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.