(PC) Howell v. Macomber, et al., No. 2:2016cv00441 - Document 61 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 56 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in Full signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/11/2018 DENYING Plaintiff's 50 MSJ and REFERRING this matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further scheduling. (Fabillaran, J)

Download PDF
(PC) Howell v. Macomber, et al. Doc. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KAREEM J. HOWELL, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-0441 KJM KJN P ORDER v. J. MACOMBER, et al., Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 18 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On April 4, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On April 20, 2018, the findings and 22 recommendations were re-served on plaintiff. Fourteen days have now passed, and neither party 23 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 4, 2018, are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 50) is denied; and 4 3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further scheduling. 5 DATED: June 11, 2018. 6 7 UNITED STATES 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.