(PC) Underwood v. Cox et al, No. 1:2016cv00597 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 01/10/2018. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ANDRE UNDERWOOD, 7 8 9 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:16-cv-00597-AWI-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF NOS. 9, 10, 14 & 39) R. COX and C. STANLEY, 10 Defendants. 11 12 Andre Underwood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 13 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 14 to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 15 On December 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 16 recommendations, recommending that all claims and defendants, except for Plaintiff’s claim 17 against Defendants R. Cox and C. Stanley for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on 18 conditions of confinement (specifically the lack of outdoor exercise), be dismissed. (ECF No. 19 39, pgs. 12-13). 20 21 The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 23 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 24 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 25 analysis. 26 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on December 7, 28 2017, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 1 1 2. All claims and defendants, except for Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants R. Cox 2 and C. Stanley for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on conditions of 3 confinement (specifically the lack of outdoor exercise), are DISMISSED; and 4 3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 10, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 8 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.