(PC) Rankins v. Liu et al, No. 2:2015cv01164 - Document 78 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/19/19 ADOPTING 76 Findings and Recommendations in full and GRANTING 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. CASE CLOSED. (Coll, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Rankins v. Liu et al Doc. 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN RANKINS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-01164 KJM DB P v. ORDER ALEXANDER LIU, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 17 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 17, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 76.) Neither 23 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 17, 2019, are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 DATED: November 19, 2019. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
