(PC) Peralta v. Swetalla et al, No. 1:2018cv01023 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/8/19. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CION PERALTA, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:18-cv-01023-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. SWETALLA, et al., (Doc. Nos. 1, 9) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Cion Peralta is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 5, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations, recommending that the action proceed against defendant Swetalla for sexual 22 assault and excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation 23 of the First Amendment, and negligence; against defendant Machado for retaliation in violation of 24 the First Amendment; and against defendants Powers and Cano for denial of due process in 25 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. No. 9). The findings and recommendations were 26 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty- 27 one days from the date of service. (Id. at 13.) To date, no objections to the findings and 28 recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned finds the 3 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations issued December 5, 2018 (Doc. No. 9) are adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s claims against defendant Swetalla for 8 sexual assault and excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, 9 retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and negligence; against defendant 10 Machado for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and against 11 defendants Powers and Cano for denial of due process in violation of the 12 Fourteenth Amendment; and 13 3. All other claims and defendants, including defendant Sebok, are dismissed; and 14 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 15 16 17 18 proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 8, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.